[House Report 109-452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





109th Congress          HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES               Report  
 2nd Session                                                  109-452  
                                                                       
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   on

                               H.R. 5122

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

  May 5, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                                      

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

109th Congress          HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
 2nd Session                            
                                                                109-452

_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   on

                               H.R. 5122

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

  May 5, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                  DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             LANE EVANS, Illinois
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama               GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,           MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
    California                       SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas                     MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California              ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia               JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               STEVE ISRAEL, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            RICK LARSEN, Washington
JEFF MILLER, Florida                 JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire           MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio                 TIM RYAN, Ohio
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                MARK UDALL, Colorado
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan
CATHY McMORRIS, Washington
MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky

                   Robert L. Simmons, Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     1
Purpose..........................................................     2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill.............................     2
Summary Table of Authorizations..................................     3
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................    12
Hearings.........................................................    16

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

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    16
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    16
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    18
      Overview...................................................    18
      Items of Special Interest..................................    22
        AH-64 modern signal processing unit......................    22
        Joint cargo aircraft.....................................    22
        HH-60 aircraft wireless intercom system upgrade..........    23
        UH-60A to UH-60L helicopter upgrade......................    23
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    23
      Overview...................................................    23
      Items of Special Interest..................................    26
        Patriot modifications....................................    26
        TOW missile inventory....................................    26
    Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................    26
      Overview...................................................    26
      Items of Special Interest..................................    30
        Army current to future force modernization strategy......    30
          Army modularity........................................    30
          Heavy brigade combat teams.............................    31
          Abrams tank modernization..............................    32
          Bradley base sustainment program.......................    32
        Integrated air burst weapon system.......................    32
    Ammunition Procurement, Army.................................    33
      Overview...................................................    33
      Items of Special Interest..................................    37
        Desert optimized equipment...............................    37
        Modernization of .50 caliber ammunition production line..    37
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    37
      Overview...................................................    37
      Items of Special Interest..................................    48
        Bridge to future networks................................    48
        Combat medical support...................................    48
        Immersive group simulation...............................    49
        M915A3 production........................................    49
        Simulated combat training capability for Army National 
          Guard..................................................    49
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    50
      Overview...................................................    50
      Items of Special Interest..................................    55
        EP-3E service life extension.............................    55
        H-53 series modifications................................    55
        P-3C modernization.......................................    55
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    56
      Overview...................................................    56
      Item of Special Interest...................................    60
        Conventional trident modification........................    60
    Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps..................    60
      Overview...................................................    60
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    63
      Overview...................................................    63
      Items of Special Interest..................................    67
        313 ship navy force structure............................    67
        Aircraft carrier force structure requirements............    67
        Arleigh Burke class destroyer modernization..............    67
        Battleship transfer......................................    68
        Incremental funding for shipbuilding.....................    68
        Littoral combat ship program.............................    69
        Next-generation destroyer................................    69
        Shipbuilding/ship repair industrial base capacity........    70
        Ship cost estimates......................................    71
        Virginia class submarine.................................    71
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    72
      Overview...................................................    72
      Items of Special Interest..................................    82
        AEGIS land based test site modernization.................    82
        Amphibious ship integrated bridge system.................    82
        AN/SPQ-9B radar..........................................    82
        AN/SPS-48 radar obsolescence, availability and recovery..    83
        Boat lifts for small boats...............................    83
        Canned lube pumps for amphibious ships...................    83
        CVN propeller replacement program........................    83
        Laser marksmanship training systems......................    84
        Man overboard identification system......................    84
        Materials handling equipment.............................    84
        Medical support equipment................................    85
        Multi-climate protective system..........................    85
        Multi-spectral threat emitter system.....................    85
        Serial number tracking system............................    86
        Submarine communications upgrades........................    86
        Submarine non-tactical application delivery interface 
          system shore interface.................................    86
        Ultrasonic maintenance tools.............................    87
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    87
      Overview...................................................    87
      Items of Special Interest..................................    94
        Envelope protective covers for marine expeditionary unit 
          weapon systems and platforms...........................    94
        Intelligent surveillance systems.........................    94
        Laser perimeter awareness system.........................    94
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................    95
      Overview...................................................    95
      Items of Special Interest..................................   102
        B-1B molecular sieve oxygen generation system............   102
        B-2 radar modification program...........................   102
        B-52 force structure.....................................   103
        C-130 modifications......................................   103
        C-5 modernization programs...............................   104
        C-9 hush kits............................................   104
        F-22.....................................................   105
        F-35.....................................................   105
        KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program   106
        P5 combat training systems...............................   107
        Strategic airlift force structure........................   107
        T-38 ejection seat upgrade program.......................   108
    Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................   109
      Overview...................................................   109
      Item of Special Interest...................................   112
        Insensitive munitions upgrade............................   112
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   112
      Overview...................................................   112
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   116
      Overview...................................................   116
      Items of Special Interest..................................   123
        Cheyenne Mountain complex................................   123
        Combat survivor radios...................................   123
        Combat training ranges...................................   123
        Enterprise data collection solution......................   124
        Force protection near real time surveillance.............   124
        High frequency ground control station antennas...........   124
        Mobile approach control system...........................   125
        Self-deploying infra-red streamer........................   125
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   125
      Overview...................................................   125
      Items of Special Interest..................................   131
        Advanced SEAL Delivery System............................   131
        Chemical and biological defense procurement..............   131
        Special operations forces operational enhancements.......   131
        Unmanned aerial systems to counter improvised explosive 
          devices................................................   132
        U.S. Special Operations Command aviation modernization...   132
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   133
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   133
      Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations..........   133
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................   133
      Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Family of 
        Medium Tactical Vehicles.................................   133
      Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for MH-60R 
        Helicopters and Mission Equipment........................   134
      Section 113--Funding Profile for Modular Force Initiative 
        of the Army..............................................   134
      Section 114--Bridge to Future Networks Program.............   134
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................   134
      Section 121--Attack Submarine Force Structure..............   134
      Section 122--Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for CVN-21 
        Class of Aircraft Carriers...............................   135
      Section 123--Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for LHA 
        Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program..............   135
      Section 124--Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for San 
        Antonio (LPD-17) Class Amphibious Ship Program...........   135
      Section 125--Multiyear Procurement Authority for V-22 
        Tiltrotor Aircraft Program...............................   136
      Section 126--Quality Control in Procurement of Ship 
        Critical Safety Items and Related Services...............   136
      Section 127--DD(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program.......   136
      Section 128--Sense of Congress that the Navy Make Greater 
        Use of Nuclear-Powered Propulsion Systems in its Future 
        Fleet of Surface Combatants..............................   136
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................   137
      Section 131--Requirement for B-52 Force Structure..........   137
      Section 132--Strategic Airlift Force Structure.............   137
      Section 133--Limitation on Retirement of U-2 Aircraft......   137
      Section 134--Multiyear Procurement Authority for F-22A 
        Raptor Fighter Aircraft..................................   137
      Section 135--Limitation on Retirement of KC-135E Aircraft 
        During Fiscal Year 2007..................................   137
      Section 136--Limitation on Retirement of F-117A Aircraft 
        During Fiscal Year 2007..................................   138

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION..............   138
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   138
    Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation...............   141
      Overview...................................................   141
      Items of Special Interest..................................   155
        Advanced hypersonic weapon mission planning and control..   155
        Applied communications and information networking........   155
        Armored systems modernization............................   155
        AT4 confined space weapon system enhancements............   157
        Center for rotorcraft innovation.........................   157
        Digital array radar......................................   157
        Dominant military operations on urban terrain viewer.....   158
        Environmental quality technology.........................   158
        Excalibur precision guided artillery munition............   158
        Flexible display initiative..............................   159
        Gas-engine driven air conditioning system demonstrations.   159
        High assurance secure object proxy.......................   159
        Human systems integration................................   159
        Integrated digital environment service model.............   160
        Intelligent surveillance sensor suite....................   160
        Joint land attack cruise missile defense and micro 
          electro mechanical system..............................   160
        Light utility vehicle....................................   161
        Lightweight small arms technologies......................   161
        Long-term armoring strategy..............................   161
        Medical advanced technology..............................   162
        Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment--
          SDD....................................................   162
        Miniaturized sensors for small and tactical unmanned 
          aerial vehicles........................................   162
        Missile recycling capability technology..................   163
        Mobile assessment detection and response system..........   163
        Next-generation advanced materials research..............   163
        Polymer matrix composites for rotorcraft drive systems...   163
        Portable and mobile emergency broadband system...........   164
        Product lifecycle management plus........................   164
        Radiation hardening initiative...........................   164
        Smart energetics architecture............................   165
        Stryker vehicle open architecture electronic enhancements   165
        Tactical wheeled vehicle product improvement program.....   165
        Training-based collaborative research in military 
          consequence management.................................   166
        Transparent armor........................................   166
        Warfighter sustainment...................................   166
    Navy Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation...............   166
      Overview...................................................   166
      Items of Special Interest..................................   181
        Advanced composite riverine craft........................   181
        Advanced materials for acoustic window applications......   181
        Affordable towed array construction/fiber optic towed 
          array construction.....................................   181
        Affordable weapon system.................................   182
        Airborne reconnaissance systems..........................   182
        Aircraft carrier launch and recovery and support 
          equipment modernization................................   182
        Ballistic trajectory extended range munition.............   183
        Bio-film packaging applied research......................   183
        Cobra Judy ship replacement..............................   183
        Common submarine radio room..............................   184
        Conventional Trident modification........................   184
        Defense research sciences................................   185
        Detection and recovery of unexploded ordnance............   185
        Dismounted soldier training test instrumentation.........   186
        Distributed common ground system.........................   186
        DockShock ship shock test system.........................   186
        DP-2 vectored thrust aircraft............................   187
        E-2 advanced hawkeye identification friend or foe 
          technology development.................................   187
        Electro-optic passive antisubmarine warfare system.......   187
        F/A-18 squadrons.........................................   188
        Flexible payload module and payload interface module 
          development............................................   189
        High performance FM fiber-optic link.....................   189
        Human systems integration................................   189
        Integrated shipboard intelligent surveillance............   189
        Joint integrated systems for advanced digital networking.   190
        Large aperture bow array.................................   190
        Large displacement unmanned undersea vehicle at-sea 
          launch and recovery system.............................   190
        Lightweight multi-threat encapsulated ceramic body armor.   191
        Lithium battery technology...............................   191
        Marine expeditionary rifle squad.........................   191
        Maritime identification surveillance technology phased 
          array radar............................................   192
        Maritime technology......................................   192
          National shipbuilding research program.................   193
          Shipbuilding industrial base improvement grants........   193
          Shipbuilding industrial base improvement loan 
            guarantees...........................................   193
        Naval surface fire support...............................   193
        Network communication system technology for extreme 
          environments...........................................   194
        Next-generation electronic warfare simulator.............   195
        Next-generation Phalanx..................................   195
        Permanent magnet motor...................................   196
        Retroreflecting optical communications for special 
          operations.............................................   196
        Sea fighter (X-Craft)....................................   196
        Secure infrastructure technology laboratory..............   197
        Shipboard wireless maintenance assistant.................   197
        Small arms and crew served weapons shot counter..........   197
        Smart valve..............................................   197
        Tactical electric field buoy development program.........   198
        Validation of prognostic and health management systems...   198
        VH-71....................................................   198
        Virtual-at-sea training technologies.....................   199
        Warfare protection advanced technology...................   199
        Wet end installation system element......................   200
        Wireless maritime inspection system......................   200
    Air Force Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation..........   200
      Overview...................................................   200
      Items of Special Interest..................................   214
        Active feedback flow control technology..................   214
        Advanced engine starter/generator system prototype.......   214
        Advanced optics and laser space technology...............   214
        Advanced spacecraft technology...........................   215
        Affordable lightweight power supply development..........   215
        B-52 internal weapons bay upgrade........................   216
        B-52 stand-off jammer program............................   216
        Biostatic protective clothing............................   216
        C-130 airlift squadrons..................................   217
        Combatant commanders' integrated command and control 
          system.................................................   217
        Distributed mission interoperability toolkit program.....   218
        Engineering tool improvement program.....................   218
        High accuracy network determination system...............   218
        High modulus polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber..............   218
        Human systems integration................................   219
        Interactive avionics roadmap.............................   219
        Joint advanced global strike demonstration...............   219
        Joint strike fighter development.........................   220
        KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program   221
        Large aircraft countermeasures system for AC-130U 
          aircraft...............................................   221
        Laser peening fatigue life extension.....................   222
        Low emission hybrid electric engine propulsion...........   222
        Major test and evaluation investment.....................   222
        Materials................................................   223
        Measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) 
          visualization tools program............................   223
        Metals affordability initiative..........................   223
        Nanocrystalline diamond coatings.........................   223
        Operationally responsive space...........................   224
        Radio frequency identification tag rapid adoption 
          initiative, phase2.....................................   224
        Small diameter bomb......................................   224
        Space-based radar........................................   224
        Space control test capabilities..........................   225
        Space technology.........................................   225
        Tactical automated security system advanced 
          communications module..................................   225
        Transformational satellite communications system.........   226
        Winglets for in-service aircraft.........................   226
    Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation.......   227
      Overview...................................................   227
      Items of Special Interest..................................   240
        Accelerated intelligence analyst education and training..   240
        Advanced data encryption technololgy.....................   240
        Advanced SEAL Delivery System............................   240
        Advanced surface radar technologies......................   241
        Advanced tactical laser program..........................   241
        Ballistic missile defense................................   241
          Aegis ballistic missile defense........................   242
          Boost defense segment..................................   242
          Core...................................................   243
          Midcourse defense segment..............................   243
          Multiple kill vehicle..................................   244
          System interceptor.....................................   244
          Technology.............................................   245
        Biological warfare defense...............................   245
        Business transformation agency...........................   246
        Chemical-biological collective protective shelters.......   246
        Chemical and biological defense program..................   246
          Advanced technology development........................   247
          Applied research.......................................   247
          Basic research.........................................   247
        Combating terrorism technology support...................   248
        Generic logistics research and development technology 
          demonstrations.........................................   248
        Improved suborbital operations...........................   249
        Joint training transformation............................   249
        Office of force transformation...........................   249
        Special operations advanced technology development.......   250
        Special operations forces operational enhancements.......   250
        Special operations intelligence systems development......   250
        Special operations tactical systems development..........   251
        Special operations technology development................   251
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   252
      Overview...................................................   252
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   252
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   252
      Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............   252
      Section 202--Amount for Defense Science and Technology.....   252
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   252
      Section 211--Alternate Engine for Joint Strike Fighter.....   252
      Section 212--Extension of Authority to Award Prizes for 
        Advanced Technology Achievements.........................   252
      Section 213--Extension of Defense Acquisition Challenge 
        Program..................................................   252
      Section 214--Future Combat Systems Milestone Review........   253
      Section 215--Independent Cost Analyses for Joint Strike 
        Fighter Engine Program...................................   253
      Section 216--Dedicated Amounts for Implementing or 
        Evaluating DD(X) and CVN-21 Proposals Under Defense 
        Acquisition Challenge Program............................   253
    Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................   253
      Section 221--Fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense 
        Capabilities.............................................   253
      Section 222--Limitation on Use of Funds for Spacebased 
        Interceptor..............................................   253
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   254
      Section 231--Review of Test and Evaluation Policies and 
        Practices to Address Emerging Acquisition Approaches.....   254

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................   255
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   255
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   288
    Budget Request Adjustments--Readiness........................   288
      Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery....................   289
      Capital Security Cost Share................................   289
      Combat Enhancement Forces and Combat Communications........   290
      Homeland Defense Operational Planning System...............   290
      Maritime Prepositioning Ship Lease Buyout..................   290
      Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network...................   291
      Navy Marine Corps Intranet.................................   291
      Port of Corpus Christi.....................................   291
      Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative..........   291
      Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams............   292
    Environmental Issues.........................................   292
      Fuel Tank Replacement at Point Loma, California............   292
      Non-thermal Treatment of Asbestos and Asbestos Containing 
        Material.................................................   292
      Report on Uranium Located in Gore, Oklahoma................   292
      Site Assessment of Former World War II Ordnance 
        Manufacturing Facility, Rosemount, Minnesota.............   293
    Information Technology Issues................................   293
      Information Technology Overview............................   293
      Business Transformation Agency and Enterprise Risk 
        Assessment Model.........................................   294
    Readiness Issues.............................................   294
      Air Force Transformation...................................   294
      Army Logistics Modernization...............................   295
      Base Operating Support and Facilities Recapitalization 
        Budget Shortfalls........................................   295
      Beryllium Supply Industrial Base...........................   296
      Depot Maintenance Strategy and Implementation Plans........   296
      High Altitude Aviation Training............................   297
      National Space Studies Center Study........................   298
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   298
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   298
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   298
      Section 302--Working Capital Funds.........................   298
      Section 303--Other Department of Defense Programs..........   298
    Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions.........................   299
      Section 311--Revision of Requirement for Unexploded 
        Ordnance Program Manager.................................   299
      Section 312--Identification and Monitoring of Military 
        Munitions Disposal Sites in Ocean Waters Extending from 
        United States Coast to Outer Boundary of Outer 
        Continental Shelf........................................   299
      Section 313--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection 
        Agency for Certain Costs in Connection with Moses Lake 
        Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington.........   299
      Section 314--Funding of Cooperative Agreements Under 
        Environmental Restoration Program........................   299
      Section 315--Analysis and Report Regarding Contamination 
        and Remediation Responsibility for Norwalk Defense Fuel 
        Supply Point, Norwalk, California........................   300
    Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues.......................   300
      Section 321--Extension of Exclusion of Certain Expenditures 
        from Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Depot-Level 
        Maintenance..............................................   300
      Section 322--Minimum Capital Investment for Air Force 
        Depots...................................................   300
      Section 323--Extension of Temporary Authority for 
        Contractor Performance of Security Guard Functions.......   300
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................   301
      Section 331--Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Depot 
        Maintenance..............................................   301
      Section 332--Report on Navy Fleet Response Plan............   301
      Section 333--Report on Navy Surface Ship Rotational Crew 
        Programs.................................................   301
      Section 334--Report on Army Live-Fire Ranges in Hawaii.....   302
      Section 335--Comptroller General Report on Joint Standards 
        and Protocols for Access Control Systems at Department of 
        Defense Installations....................................   302
      Section 336--Report on Personnel Security Investigations 
        for Industry and National Industrial Security Program....   302
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   303
      Section 341--Department of Defense Strategic Policy on 
        Prepositioning of Materiel and Equipment.................   303
      Section 342--Authority to Make Department of Defense Horses 
        Available for Adoption at End of Useful Working Life.....   304
      Section 343--Sale and Use of Proceeds of Recyclable 
        Munitions Materials......................................   304
      Section 344--Capital Security Cost Sharing.................   304
      Section 345--Prioritization of Funds Within Navy Mission 
        Operations, Ship Maintenance, Combat Support Forces, and 
        Weapons System Support...................................   304
      Section 346--Prioritization of Funds Within Army 
        Reconstitution and Transformation........................   305

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   306
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   306
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   306
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   306
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   306
      Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 
        Minimum Levels...........................................   307
      Section 403--Additional Authority for Increases of Army and 
        Marine Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 
        2008 and 2009............................................   307
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   307
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   307
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 
        Support of the Reserve Components........................   308
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual 
        Status)..................................................   308
      Section 414--Fiscal Year 2007 Limitation on Number of Non-
        Dual Status Technicians..................................   309
      Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 
        to be on Active Duty for Operational Support.............   309
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   309
      Section 421--Military Personnel............................   309
      Section 422--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................   310

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   310
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   310
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   312
      Academy Language Training..................................   312
      Closure of Article 32 Investigations in Cases of Sexual 
        Assault or Domestic Violence.............................   312
      Department of the Navy Personal Responsibility and Values: 
        Education and Training Program...........................   313
      Educational Opportunities in Interagency Coordination at 
        the Military War Colleges................................   313
      Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies.............   314
      Operation of Army Air Ambulance Detachments................   314
      Permanent Identification Cards for Adult Disabled Children.   315
      Personnel Plan for Linguists...............................   315
      Process for Restructuring the Army National Guard..........   315
      Social Security Numbers on Military Identification Cards...   316
      Trafficking in Persons.....................................   316
      Victim Service Organization Privilege in Cases Arising 
        Under Uniform Code of Military Justice...................   317
      Web-based Enhancement to Support Family Readiness Programs.   318
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   318
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   318
      Section 501--Authorized Strength of Navy Reserve Flag 
        Officers.................................................   318
      Section 502--Standardization of Grade of Senior Dental 
        Officer of the Air Force with that of Senior Dental 
        Officer of the Army......................................   318
      Section 503--Management of Chief Warrant Officers..........   319
      Section 504--Reduction in Time-in-Grade Requirement for 
        Promotion to Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marine 
        Corps and Lieutenant in the Navy.........................   319
      Section 505--Military Status of Officers Serving in Certain 
        Intelligence Community Positions.........................   319
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   319
      Section 511--Revisions to Reserve Call-up Authority........   319
      Section 512--Military Retirement Credit for Certain Service 
        by National Guard Members Performed While in a State Duty 
        Status Immediately After the Terrorist Attacks of 
        September 11, 2001.......................................   320
      Section 513--Report on Private Sector Promotion and 
        Constructive Termination of Members of the Reserve 
        Components Called or Ordered to Active Service...........   320
    Subtitle C--Education and Training...........................   320
      Section 521--Authority to Permit Members Who Participate in 
        the Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship Program to 
        Participate in the Health Professions Scholarship Program 
        and Serve on Active Duty.................................   320
      Section 522--Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
        Instruction Eligibility Expansion........................   320
      Section 523--Authority for United States Military Academy 
        and United States Air Force Academy Permanent Military 
        Professors to Assume Command Positions While on Periods 
        of Sabbatical............................................   321
      Section 524--Expansion of Service Academy Exchange Programs 
        with Foreign Military Academies..........................   321
      Section 525--Review of Legal Status of Junior ROTC Program.   321
    Subtitle D--General Service Authorities......................   322
      Section 531--Test of Utility of Test Preparation Guides and 
        Education Programs in Enhancing Recruit Candidate 
        Performance on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 
        Battery (ASVAB) and Armed Forces Qualification Test 
        (AFQT)...................................................   322
      Section 532--Nondisclosure of Selection Board Proceedings..   322
      Section 533--Report on Extent of Provision of Timely Notice 
        of Long-Term Deployments.................................   322
    Subtitle E--Authorities Relating to Guard and Reserve Duty...   323
      Section 541--Title 10 Definition of Active Guard and 
        Reserve Duty.............................................   323
      Section 542--Authority for Active Guard and Reserve Duties 
        to Include Support of Operational Missions Assigned to 
        the Reserve Components and Instruction and Training of 
        Active-Duty Personnel....................................   323
      Section 543--Governor's Authority to Order Members to 
        Active Guard and Reserve Duty............................   323
      Section 544--National Guard Officers Authority to Command..   323
      Section 545--Expansion of Operations of Civil Support Teams   324
    Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards...........................   324
      Section 551--Authority for Presentation of Medal of Honor 
        Flag to Living Medal of Honor Recipients and to Living 
        Primary Next-of-Kin of Deceased Medal of Honor Recipients   324
      Section 552--Cold War Victory Medal........................   324
      Section 553--Posthumous Award of Purple Heart for Prisoners 
        of War Who Die in or Due to Captivity....................   324
      Section 554--Advancement on the Retired List of Certain 
        Decorated Retired Navy and Marine Corps Officers.........   324
      Section 555--Report on Department of Defense Process for 
        Awarding Decorations.....................................   325
    Subtitle G--Matters Relating to Casualties...................   325
      Section 561--Criteria for Removal of Member from Temporary 
        Disability Retired List..................................   325
      Section 562--Department of Defense Computer/Electronic 
        Accommodations Program for Severely Wounded Members......   325
      Section 563--Transportation of Remains of Casualties Dying 
        in a Theater of Combat Operations........................   325
      Section 564--Annual Budget Display of Funds for POW/MIA 
        Activities of Department of Defense......................   326
    Subtitle H--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for 
      Defense Dependents Education...............................   327
      Section 571--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local 
        Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members 
        of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian 
        Employees................................................   327
      Section 572--Enrollment in Defense Dependents' Education 
        System of Dependents of Foreign Military Members Assigned 
        to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe............   327
    Subtitle I--Postal Benefits..................................   327
      Section 575--Postal Benefits Program for Members of the 
        Armed Forces.............................................   327
      Section 576--Funding.......................................   327
      Section 577--Duration......................................   328
    Subtitle J--Other Matters....................................   328
      Section 581--Reduction in Department of Defense Accrual 
        Contributions to Department of Defense Military 
        Retirement Fund..........................................   328
      Section 582--Dental Corps of the Bureau of Medicine and 
        Surgery..................................................   328
      Section 583--Permanent Authority for Presentation of 
        Recognition Items for Recruitment and Retention Purposes.   328
      Section 584--Report on Feasibility of Establishment of 
        Military Entrance Processing Command Station on Guam.....   328
      Section 585--Persons Authorized to Administer Enlistment 
        and Appointment Oaths....................................   328
      Section 586--Repeal of Requirement for Periodic Department 
        of Defense Inspector General Assessments of Voting 
        Assistance Compliance at Military Installations..........   329
      Section 587--Physical Evaluation Boards....................   329
      Section 588--Department of Labor Transitional Assistance 
        Program..................................................   330
      Section 589--Revision in Government Contributions to 
        Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund...............   330
      Section 590--Military Chaplains............................   331
      Section 591--Report on Personnel Requirements for Airborne 
        Assets Identified as Low-Density, High-Demand Airborne 
        Assets...................................................   331
      Section 592--Entrepreneurial Service Members Empowerment 
        Task Force...............................................   331
      Section 593--Comptroller General Report on Military 
        Conscientious Objectors..................................   331
      Section 594--Commission on the National Guard and Reserves.   331

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   332
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   332
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   332
      Elimination of the Survivor Benefit Plan Two-Tier Annuity 
        Computation System.......................................   332
      Military Decorations and Uniform Accounterments Sold in 
        Military Exchange Stores.................................   333
      Recoupment of Survivor Benefit Plan Overpayments...........   333
      Second Destination Transportation of Exchange Store Goods..   334
      Treatment of Dual Military Couples.........................   334
      United Service Organizations...............................   334
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   335
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   335
      Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2007....   335
      Section 602--Targeted Increase in Basic Pay Rates..........   335
      Section 603--Conforming Change in General and Flag Officer 
        Pay Cap to Reflect Increase in Pay Cap for Senior 
        Executive Service Personnel..............................   335
      Section 604--Availability of Second Basic Allowance for 
        Housing for Certain Reserve Component or Retired Members 
        Serving in Support of Contingency Operations.............   335
      Section 605--Extension of Temporary Continuation of Housing 
        Allowance for Dependents of Members Dying on Active Duty 
        to Spouses Who are Also Members..........................   336
      Section 606--Clarification of Effective Date of Prohibition 
        on Compensation for Correspondence Courses...............   336
      Section 607--Payment of Full Premium for Coverage Under 
        Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Program During 
        Service in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi 
        Freedom..................................................   336
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   336
      Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
        Authorities for Reserve Forces...........................   336
      Section 612--Extension of Bonus and Special Pay Authorities 
        for Health Care Professionals............................   336
      Section 613--Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 
        for Nuclear Officers.....................................   337
      Section 614--Extension of Other Bonus, Special Pay, and 
        Separation Pay Authorities...............................   337
      Section 615--Expansion of Eligibility of Dental Officers 
        for Additional Special Pay...............................   337
      Section 616--Increase in Maximum Annual Rate of Special Pay 
        for Selected Reserve Health Care Professionals in 
        Critically Short Wartime Specialties.....................   337
      Section 617--Authority to Provide Lump Sum Payment of 
        Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay............................   337
      Section 618--Increase in Maximum Amount of Nuclear Career 
        Accession Bonus..........................................   337
      Section 619--Increase in Maximum Amount of Incentive Bonus 
        for Transfer Between Armed Forces........................   337
      Section 620--Clarification Regarding Members of the Army 
        Eligible for Bonus for Referring Other Persons for 
        Enlistment in the Army...................................   338
      Section 621--Pilot Program for Recruitment Bonus for 
        Critical Health Care Specialties.........................   338
      Section 622--Enhancement of Temporary Program of Voluntary 
        Separation Pay and Benefits..............................   338
      Section 623--Additional Authorities and Incentives to 
        Encourage Retired Members and Reserve Component Members 
        to Volunteer to Serve on Active Duty in High-Demand, Low-
        Density Assignments......................................   338
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowance..............   338
      Section 631--Authoriy to Pay Costs Associated with Delivery 
        of Motor Vehicle to Storage Location Selected by Member 
        and Subsequent Removal of Vehicle........................   338
      Section 632--Transportation of Additional Motor Vehicle of 
        Members on Change of Permanent Station to or from 
        Nonforeign Areas Outside the Continental United States...   339
      Section 633--Travel and Transportation Allowances for 
        Transportation of Family Members Incident to Illness or 
        Injury of Members........................................   339
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits...............   339
      Section 641--Military Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiaries 
        Under Insurable Interest Coverage........................   339
      Section 642--Retroactive Payment of Additional Death 
        Gratuity for Certain Members Not Previously Covered......   339
      Section 643--Equity in Computation of Disability Retired 
        Pay for Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action......   339
    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 
      Instrumentality Benefits...................................   340
      Section 651--Treatment of Price Surcharges of Tobacco 
        Products and Certain Other Merchandise Sold at Commissary 
        Stores...................................................   340
      Section 652--Limitation on Use of Department of Defense 
        Lease Authority to Undermine Commissaries and Exchange 
        and Other Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs and 
        Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities...................   340
      Section 653--Use of Nonappropriated Funds to Supplement or 
        Replace Appropriated Funds for Construction of Facilities 
        of Exchange Stores System and Other Nonappropriated Fund 
        Instrumentalities, Military Lodging, Facilities, and 
        Community Facilities.....................................   340
      Section 654--Report on Cost Effectiveness of Purchasing 
        Commercial Insurance for Commissary and Exchange 
        Facilities and Facilities of Other Morale, Welfare, and 
        Recreation Programs and Nonappropriated Fund 
        Instrumentalities........................................   340
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   341
      Section 661--Repeal of Annual Reporting Requirement 
        Regarding Effects of Recruitment and Retention 
        Initiatives..............................................   341
      Section 662--Pilot Project Regarding Providing Golf Carts 
        Accessible for Disabled Persons at Military Golf Courses.   341
      Section 663--Enhanced Authority to Remit or Cancel 
        Indebtedness of Members of the Armed Forces Incurred on 
        Active Duty..............................................   341

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   342
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   342
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   343
      Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center..................   343
      Comptroller General Report on a Unified Medical Command 
        Plan.....................................................   343
      Fort Drum Health Care Pilot Program........................   343
      Mental Health Programs for Combat Veterans and Their 
        Families.................................................   344
      Screening for Traumatic Brain Injury.......................   344
      TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Program........................   344
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   345
    Subtitle A--TRICARE Program Improvements.....................   345
      Section 701--TRICARE Coverage for Forensic Examination 
        Following Sexual Assault or Domestic Violence............   345
      Section 702--Authorization of Anesthesia and Other Costs 
        for Dental Care for Children and Certain Other Patients..   345
      Section 703--Improvements to Descriptions of Cancer 
        Screening................................................   345
      Section 704--Prohibition on Increases in Certain Health 
        Care Costs for Members of the Uniformed Services.........   345
      Section 705--Services of Mental Health Counselors..........   346
      Section 706--Demonstration Project on Coverage of Selected 
        Over-the-Counter Medications Under the Pharmacy Benefit 
        Program..................................................   346
      Section 707--Requirement to Reimburse Certain Travel 
        Expenses of Certain Beneficiaries Covered by TRICARE for 
        Life.....................................................   346
      Section 708--Inflation Adjustment of Differential Payments 
        to Children's Hospitals Participating in TRICARE Program.   346
      Section 709--Expanded Eligibility of Selected Reserve 
        Members Under TRICARE Program............................   347
      Section 710--Extension to TRICARE of Medicare Prohibition 
        of Financial Incentives Not to Enroll in Group Health 
        Plan.....................................................   347
    Subtitle B--Studies and Reports..............................   347
      Section 711--Department of Defense Task Force on the Future 
        of Military Health Care..................................   347
      Section 712--Study and Plan Relating to Chiropractic Health 
        Care Services............................................   347
      Section 713--Comptroller General Study and Report on 
        Defense Health Program...................................   348
      Section 714--Transfer of Custody of the Air Force Health 
        Study Assets to Medical Follow-up Agency.................   348
      Section 715--Study on Allowing Dependents of Activated 
        Members of the Reserve Components to Retain Civilian 
        Health Care Coverage.....................................   348
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   349
      Section 721--Costs of Incentive Payments to Employees for 
        TRICARE Enrollment Made Unallowable for Contractors......   349
      Section 722--Requirement For Military Medical Personnel to 
        be Trained in Preservation of Remains....................   349
    Subtitle D--Pharmacy Benefits Program Improvements...........   349
      Section 731--TRICARE Pharmacy Program Cost-Share 
        Requirements.............................................   349

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
    RELATED MATTERS..............................................   350
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   350
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   352
      Major Defense Acquisition Program Reform...................   352
      Prime Vendor Program.......................................   352
      Special Operations Command Requirements....................   353
      Undefinitized Contract Actions.............................   353
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   353
    Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition 
        Programs.................................................   353
      Section 801--Requirements Management Certification Training 
        Program..................................................   353
      Section 802--Additional Requirements Relating to Technical 
        Data Rights..............................................   354
      Section 803--Study and Report on Revisions to Selected 
        Acquisition Report Requirements..........................   354
      Section 804--Quarterly Updates on Implementation of 
        Acquisition Reform in the Department of Defense..........   355
      Section 805--Establishment of Defense Challenge Process for 
        Critical Cost Growth Threshold Breaches in Major Defense 
        Acquisition Programs.....................................   356
      Section 806--Market Research Required for Major Defense 
        Acquisition Programs Before Proceeding to Milestone B....   357
    Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management................   358
      Section 811--Applicability of Statutory Executive 
        Compensation Cap Made Prospective........................   358
      Section 812--Prohibition on Procurement from Beneficiaries 
        of Foreign Subsidies.....................................   358
      Section 813--Time-Certain Development for Department of 
        Defense Information Technology Business Systems..........   358
      Section 814--Establishment of Panel on Contracting 
        Integrity................................................   358
    Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
      Procedures, and Limitations................................   359
      Section 821--Extension of Special Temporary Contract 
        Closeout Authority.......................................   359
      Section 822--Limitation on Contracts for the Acquisition of 
        Certain Services.........................................   359
      Section 823--Use of Federal Supply Schedules by State and 
        Local Governments for Goods and Services for Recovery 
        from Natural Disasters, Terrorism, or Nuclear, 
        Biological, Chemical, or Radiological Attack.............   359
      Section 824--Waivers to Extend Task Order Contracts for 
        Advisory and Assistance Services.........................   359
      Section 825--Enhanced Access for Small Business............   360
      Section 826--Procurement Goal for Hispanic-Serving 
        Institutions.............................................   360
      Section 827--Prohibition on Defense Contractors Requiring 
        Licenses or Fees for Use of Military Likenesses and 
        Designations.............................................   360
    Subtitle D--United States Defense Industrial Base Provisions.   361
      Section 831--Protection of Strategic Materials Critical to 
        National Security........................................   361
      Section 832--Strategic Materials Protection Board..........   361

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   362
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   362
      Importance of Placing Foreign Area Officers in Combat Units   362
      Increased Budgetary Confidence Level Implementation in 
        Space Acquisition........................................   362
      National Security Space Management.........................   362
      Report on Developing Expertise in Emerging National 
        Security Challenges......................................   363
      Report on Coordination and Oversight of Military Cultural 
        and Linguistic Policies and Training.....................   363
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   364
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   364
      Section 901--Standardization of Statutory References to 
        ``National Security System'' within Laws Applicable to 
        Department of Defense....................................   364
      Section 902--Correction of Reference to Predecessor of 
        Defense Information Systems Agency.......................   364
      Section 903--Addition to Membership of Specified Council...   364
      Section 904--Consolidation and Standardization of 
        Authorities Relating to Department of Defense Regional 
        Centers for Security Studies.............................   364
      Section 905--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as 
        the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps..............   365
    Subtitle B--Space Activities.................................   365
      Section 911--Designation of Successor Organizations for the 
        Disestablished Interagency Global Positioning Executive 
        Board....................................................   365
      Section 912--Extension of Authority for Pilot Program for 
        Provision of Space Surveillance Network Services to Non-
        United States Government Entities........................   365
      Section 913--Operationally Responsive Space................   365
    Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Program................   365
      Section 921--Transfer to Secretary of the Army of 
        Responsibility for Assembled Chemical Weapons 
        Alternatives Program.....................................   365
      Section 922--Comptroller General Review of Cost-Benefit 
        Analysis of Off-Site Versus On-Site Treatment and 
        Disposal of Hydrolysate Derived from Neutralization of VX 
        Nerve Gas at Newport Chemical Depot, Indiana.............   366
      Section 923--Sense of Congress Regarding the Safe and 
        Expeditious Disposal of Chemical Weapons.................   366
    Subtitle D--Intelligence-Related Matters.....................   366
      Section 931--Repeal of Termination of Authority of 
        Secretary of Defense to Engage in Commercial Activities 
        as Security for Intelligence Collection Activities Abroad   366

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   366
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   366
    Counter-Drug Activities......................................   366
      Overview...................................................   366
      Items of Special Interest..................................   367
        Budget requests..........................................   367
        Counternarcotics Policy for Afghanistan..................   367
        Intelligence and technology..............................   368
        Maritime Domain Awareness................................   368
        Southwest Border Fence...................................   368
        U.S. Central Command operations support..................   369
        U.S. Northern Command operations support.................   369
        U.S. Pacific Command operations support..................   369
        U.S. Southern Command operations support.................   369
    Other Activities.............................................   369
      Aircraft Carrier Force Structure...........................   369
      ``Commercial First'' Maritime Sealift Policy...............   370
      Department of Defense Civil Support........................   370
      Department of Defense Interagency Coordination in the 
        Global War on Terrorism..................................   371
      Department of Defense Participation in the Committee on 
        Foreign Investment in the United States..................   372
      Homeland Security/Defense Management Programs..............   372
      Improving International Pandemic Preparedness through 
        Theater Security Cooperation Programs....................   373
      Increasing the Availability of Intelligence, Surveillance, 
        and Reconnaissance Assets in the Event of a Catastrophic 
        Natural or Manmade Disaster..............................   373
      Joint Training and Certification for Nuclear, Chemical, and 
        Biological Defense.......................................   373
      National Counter Proliferation Center......................   374
      Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels Carrying 
        Department of Defense Cargo..............................   375
      Report on Strategic Language Skills........................   375
      Special Operations Command as the Supported Command in the 
        Global War on Terrorism..................................   376
      Status and Implementation of Military Support for 
        Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction 
        Operations...............................................   376
      Terrorist Use of the Internet..............................   377
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   377
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   377
      Section 1001--General Transfer Authority...................   377
      Section 1002--Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations 
        for Fiscal Year 2006.....................................   377
      Section 1003--Increase in Fiscal Year 2006 General Transfer 
        Authority................................................   377
      Section 1004--United States Contribution to NATO Common-
        Funded Budgets in Fiscal Year 2007.......................   378
      Section 1005--Report on Budgeting for Fluctuations in Fuel 
        Cost Rates...............................................   378
      Section 1006--Reduction in Authorizations Due to Savings 
        Resulting from Lower than Expected Inflation.............   378
    Subtitle B--Policy Relating to Naval Vessels and Shipyards...   378
      Section 1011--Transfer of Naval Vessels to Foreign Nations 
        Based upon Vessel Class..................................   378
      Section 1012--Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels 
        in Foreign Shipyards.....................................   379
      Section 1013--Report on Options for Future Lease 
        Arrangements for Guam Shipyard...........................   379
      Section 1014--Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement 
        Program..................................................   380
      Section 1015--Transfer of Operational Control of Certain 
        Patrol Coastal Ships to Coast Guard......................   380
      Section 1016--Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built 
        Vessels..................................................   380
      Section 1017--Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels 
        Carrying Department of Defense Cargo.....................   381
      Section 1018--Riding Gang Member Documentation Requirement.   381
    Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   381
      Section 1021--Restatement in Title 10, United States Code, 
        and Revision of Department of Defense Authority to 
        Provide Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Federal, 
        State, Local, and Foreign Law Enforcement Agencies.......   381
      Section 1022--Restatement in Title 10, United States Code, 
        and Revision of Department of Defense Authority to 
        Provide Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Certain 
        Foreign Governments......................................   382
      Section 1023--Extension of Authority to Support Unified 
        Counter-Drug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia...   382
      Section 1024--Continuation of Reporting Requirement 
        Regarding Department of Defense Expenditures to Support 
        Foreign Counter-Drug Activities..........................   383
      Section 1025--Report on Interagency Counternarcotics Plan 
        for Afghanistan and South and Central Asian Regions......   383
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   383
      Section 1031--Revision to Authorities Relating to 
        Commission on the Implementation of the New Strategic 
        Posture of the United States.............................   383
      Section 1032--Enhancement to Authority to Pay Rewards for 
        Assistance in Combating Terrorism........................   384
      Section 1033--Report on Assessment Process of Chairman of 
        the Joint Chiefs of Staff Relating to Global War on 
        Terrorism................................................   384
      Section 1034--Presidential Report on Improving Interagency 
        Support for United States 21st Century National Security 
        Missions.................................................   384
      Section 1035--Quarterly Reports on 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
        Review Report Implementation.............................   385
      Section 1036--Increased Hunting and Fishing Opportunities 
        for Members of the Armed Forces, Retired Members, and 
        Disabled Veterans........................................   386
      Section 1037--Technical and Clerical Amendments............   386
      Section 1038--Database of Emergency Response Capabilities..   386
      Section 1039--Information on Certain Criminal 
        Investigations and Prosecutions..........................   387
      Section 1040--Date for Final Report of EMP Commission......   387

TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   387
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   387
      Performance Periods Established in Connection with Public-
        private Competitions.....................................   387
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   388
      Section 1101--Increase in Authorized Number of Defense 
        Intelligence Senior Executive Service Employees..........   388
      Section 1102--Authority for Department of Defense to Pay 
        Full Replacement Value for Personal Property Claims of 
        Civilians................................................   388
      Section 1103--Accrual of Annual Leave for Members of the 
        Uniformed Services Performing Dual Employment............   388
      Section 1104--Death Gratuity Authorized for Federal 
        Employees................................................   388

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   389
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   389
      Addressing the Threat Posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran   389
      International Military Education and Training Programs.....   390
      Report on Certain Cooperative Activities Involving the 
        United States and India..................................   390
      Report on Department of Defense Activities in Support of 
        Multinational Peacekeeping Operations in Sudan...........   391
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   391
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   391
      Section 1201--Logistic Support for Allied Forces 
        Participating in Combined Operations.....................   391
      Section 1202--Temporary Authority to Use Acquisition and 
        Cross-Servicing Agreements to Lend Certain Military 
        Equipment to Foreign Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for 
        Personnel Protection and Survivability...................   392
      Section 1203--Recodification and Revision to Law Relating 
        to Department of Defense Humanitarian Demining Assistance   392
      Section 1204--Enhancements to Regional Defense Combating 
        Terrorism Fellowship Program.............................   392
      Section 1205--CAPSTONE Overseas Field Studies Trips to 
        People's Republic of China and Republic of China on 
        Taiwan...................................................   393
      Section 1206--Military Educational Exchanges Between Senior 
        Officers and Officials of the United States and Taiwan...   393
    Subtitle B--Nonproliferation Matters and Countries of Concern   393
      Section 1211--Procurement Restrictions Against Foreign 
        Persons That Transfer Certain Defense Articles and 
        Services to the People's Republic of China...............   393
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   394
      Section 1221--Execution of the President's Policy to Make 
        Available to Taiwan Diesel Electric Submarines...........   394

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE 
  FORMER SOVIET UNION............................................   394
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   394
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs and Funds.......................................   394
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   394
      Section 1303--Temporary Authority to Waive Limitation on 
        Funding for Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in 
        Russia...................................................   395
      Section 1304--National Academy of Sciences Study...........   395

TITLE XIV--HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER..................   395
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   395
      Sections 1401-1403--Homeland Defense Technology Transfer...   395

TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED COSTS DUE TO OPERATION 
  IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM...................   396
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   396
  SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS................................   396
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   404
      Budget Realignment.........................................   404
      Procurement................................................   404
        Improvised electronic devices countermeasures............   404
        Joint surveillance target attack radar system utilization   405
        Manned tactical persistent surveillance aircraft.........   406
      Operation and Maintenance..................................   407
      Military Personnel.........................................   407
      Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation..................   407
        U-2 aircraft sensor development..........................   407
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   407
      Section 1501--Purpose......................................   407
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   408
      Section 1502--Army Procurement.............................   408
      Section 1503--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement............   408
      Section 1504--Air Force Procurement........................   408
      Section 1505--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement..........   408
      Section 1506--Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation....   408
      Section 1507--Operation and Maintenance....................   408
      Section 1508--Defense Health Program.......................   408
      Section 1509--Classified Programs..........................   408
      Section 1510--Military Personnel...........................   408
      Section 1511--Treatment as Additional Authorizations.......   408
      Section 1512--Transfer Authority...........................   408
      Section 1513--Availability of Funds........................   409
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   409
  PURPOSE........................................................   409
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW..............   409
      Section 2001--Short Title..................................   429

TITLE XXI--ARMY..................................................   429
  SUMMARY........................................................   429
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   429
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   429
      Future Year Programming....................................   430
      Planning and Design........................................   430
      Safety-Critical Projects...................................   430
      Unspecified Minor Construction.............................   430
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   430
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   430
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   431
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   431
      Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   431

TITLE XXII--NAVY.................................................   431
  SUMMARY........................................................   431
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   431
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   431
      Planning and Design........................................   432
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   432
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   432
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   432
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   432
      Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   432
      Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005 Projects...............   432

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE...........................................   432
  SUMMARY........................................................   432
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   433
      Planning and Design........................................   433
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   433
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   433
      Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   433
      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   433
      Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   433

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES.....................................   433
  SUMMARY........................................................   433
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   434
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   434
      Fuel Storage at Naval Base Point Loma, California..........   434
      Missile Defense Agency Construction Activities.............   434
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   435
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   435
      Section 2402--Family Housing...............................   435
      Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects.................   435
      Section 2404--Authorized Base Closure and Realignment 
        Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base 
        Closure Account 2005.....................................   435
      Section 2405--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense 
        Agencies.................................................   435
      Section 2406--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2006 Projects........................   435

TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
    PROGRAM......................................................   435
  SUMMARY........................................................   435
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   436
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   436
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   436

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   436
  SUMMARY........................................................   436
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   436
      Planning and Design, Air National Guard....................   436
      Planning and Design, Army National Guard...................   436
      Planning and Design, Air Reserve...........................   437
      Planning and Design, Army Reserve..........................   437
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISION..........................................   437
      Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   437

TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS..........   437
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   437
      Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts 
        Required to be Specified by Law..........................   437
      Section 2702--Effective Date...............................   437

TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   438
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   438
      Energy Savings and Renewable Energy Opportunities at Joint 
        Bases....................................................   438
      Remediation of Property at the Former Fort Ord, California.   438
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   438
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
        Housing Changes..........................................   438
      Section 2801--Increase in Maximum Annual Amount Authorized 
        to be Obligated for Emergency Military Construction......   438
      Section 2802--Applicability of Local Comparability of Room 
        Pattern and Floor Area Requirements to Construction, 
        Acquisition, and Improvement to Military Unaccompanied 
        Housing..................................................   438
      Section 2803--Authority to Use Proceeds from Sale of 
        Military Family Housing to Support Military Housing 
        Privatization Initiative.................................   439
      Section 2804--Repeal of Special Requirement for Military 
        Construction Contracts on Guam...........................   439
      Section 2805--Congressional Notification of Cancellation 
        Ceiling for Department of Defense Energy Savings 
        Peformance Contracts.....................................   439
      Section 2806--Expansion of Authority to Convey Property at 
        Military Installations to Support Military Construction..   439
      Section 2807--Pilot Projects for Acquisition or 
        Construction of Military Unaccompanied Housing...........   439
      Section 2808--Consideration of Alternative and More 
        Efficient Uses for General Officer and Flag Officer 
        Quarters in Excess of 6,000 Square Feet..................   439
      Section 2809--Repeal of Temporary Minor Military 
        Construction Program.....................................   440
      Section 2810--One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited 
        Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for 
        Construction Projects Outside the United States..........   440
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   440
      Section 2821--Consolidation of Department of Defense 
        Authorities Regarding Granting of Easements for Rights-
        of-Way...................................................   440
      Section 2822--Authority to Grant Restrictive Easements in 
        Connection with Land Conveyances.........................   440
      Section 2823--Maximum Term of Leases for Structures and 
        Real Property Relating to Structures in Foreign Countries 
        Needed for Purposes Other than Family Housing............   440
      Section 2824--Consolidation of Laws Relating to Transfer of 
        Department of Defense Real Property Within the Department 
        and to Other Federal Agencies............................   440
      Section 2825--Congressional Notice Requirements in Advance 
        of Acquisition of Land by Condemnation for Military 
        Purposes.................................................   441
    Subtitle C--Base Closure and Realignment.....................   441
      Section 2831--Treatment of Lease Proceeds from Military 
        Installations Approved for Closure or Realignment After 
        January 1, 2005..........................................   441
    Subtitle D--Land Conveyances.................................   441
      Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Naval Air Station, Barbers 
        Point, Hawaii............................................   441
      Section 2842--Modification of Land Acquisition Authority, 
        Perquimans County, North Carolina........................   441
      Section 2843--Land Conveyance, Radford Army Ammunition 
        Plant, Pulaski County, Virginia..........................   441
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   442
      Section 2851--Availability of Community Planning Assistance 
        Relating to Encroachment of Civilian Communities on 
        Military Facilities Used for Training by the Armed Forces   442
      Section 2852--Prohibitions Against Making Certain Military 
        Airfields or Facilities Available for Use by Civil 
        Aircraft.................................................   442
      Section 2853--Naming Housing Facility at Fort Carson, 
        Colorado, in Honor of Joel Hefley, a Member of the House 
        of Representatives.......................................   442
      Section 2854--Naming Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center 
        at Rock Island, Illinois, in Honor of Lane Evans, a 
        Member of the House of Representatives...................   442
      Section 2855--Naming of Research Laboratory at Air Force 
        Rome Research Site, Rome, New York, in Honor of Sherwood 
        L. Boehlert, a Member of the House of Representatives....   442

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
    AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.....................................   442

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   442
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   442
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   459
    National Nuclear Security Administration.....................   459
      Overview...................................................   459
      Weapons Activities.........................................   459
        Directed Stockpile Work..................................   459
          Reliable Replacement Warhead...........................   459
          Responsive Infrastructure..............................   459
          Study of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty 
            Methodology..........................................   460
          Transformation Plan for the Nuclear Weapons Complex....   461
        Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 
          Campaign...............................................   462
        Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities...............   462
        Safeguards and Security..................................   463
        Test Readiness...........................................   464
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........................   464
        Global Threat Reduction Initiative.......................   464
        International Materials Protection and Cooperation.......   464
          Megaports Program......................................   465
          Radiation Detection Technology.........................   465
        Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility................................   465
        Transfer Authority to Fund New or Emerging Activities 
          Outside the United States Under the Global Threat 
          Reduction Initiative...................................   468
    Environmental and Other Defense Activities...................   468
      Overview...................................................   468
      Disposition of Plutonium Unsuitable for Conversion to Mixed 
        Oxide Fuel...............................................   469
      Hanford Defense Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization 
        Plant....................................................   469
      Savannah River Site Defense Environmental Cleanup..........   470
      Tank Waste Cleanup Research and Development Program........   471
      Yucca Mountain.............................................   471
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   471
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   471
      Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration.....   471
      Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................   471
      Section 3103--Other Defense Activities.....................   472
      Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal...............   472
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   472
      Section 3111--Plan for Transformation of National Nuclear 
        Security Administration Nuclear Weapons Complex..........   472
      Section 3112--Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure 
        Recapitalization Program.................................   472
      Section 3113--Utilization of Contributions to Global Threat 
        Reduction Initiative.....................................   472
      Section 3114--Utilization of Contributions to Second Line 
        of Defense Program.......................................   472
      Section 3115--Two-Year Extension of Authority for 
        Appointment of Certain Scientific, Engineering, and 
        Technical Personnel......................................   472
      Section 3116--National Academy of Sciences Study of 
        Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty Methodology for 
        Assessing and Certifying the Safety and Reliability of 
        the Nuclear Stockpile....................................   472
      Section 3117--Consolidation of Counterintelligence Programs 
        of Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security 
        Administration...........................................   473

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   473
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   473
    ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.....................................
      Role of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board........   473
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   473
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   473

TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.........................   474
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   474
      Sale of Strategic and Critical Materials...................   474
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   474
      Section 3301--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 
        Funds....................................................   474
      Section 3302--Revision of Limitations to Required Receipt 
        Objectives for Previously Authorized Disposals from 
        National Defense Stockpile...............................   474

TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................   475
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   475
      Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations..............   475

TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   475
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   485
      Fuel Assistance Payments to State and Regional Maritime 
        Academies................................................   475
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   475
      Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal 
        Year 2007................................................    00
      Section 3502--Limitation on Transfer of Maritime Security 
        Fleet Operating Agreements...............................   476
      Section 3503--Applicability of Certain Maritime 
        Administration Vessels of Limitations on Overhaul, 
        Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels in Foreign Shipyards..   476
      Section 3504--Vessel Transfer Authority....................   476
      Section 3505--United States Merchant Marine Academy 
        Graduates: Alternate Service Requirements................   477
      Section 3506--United States Merchant Marine Academy 
        Graduates: Service Obligation Performance Reporting 
        Requirement..............................................   477
      Section 3507--Temporary Authority to Transfer Obsolete 
        Combatant Vessels to Navy for Disposal...................   477
      Section 3508--Temporary Requirement to Maintain Ready 
        Reserve Force............................................   477
Departmental Data................................................   477
  Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   477
Committee Position...............................................   479
Communications From Other Committees.............................   479
Fiscal Data......................................................   487
  Congressional Budget Office Estimate...........................   487
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................   490
Oversight Findings...............................................   490
General Performance Goals and Objectives.........................   490
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................   491
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   491
Roll Call Votes..................................................   491
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   498
Additional and Dissenting Views..................................   499
  Additional views of Ike Skelton, Steve Israel, Solomon P. 
    Ortiz, Ellen O. Tauscher, Adam Smith, G.K. Butterfield, 
    Loretta Sanchez, Silvestre Reyes, John Spratt, Madeleine Z. 
    Bordallo, Robert E. Andrews, Mark Udall, Neil Abercrombie, 
    Marty Meehan, Jim Langevin, Susan Davis, Vic Snyder, Tim 
    Ryan, Rick Larsen, Jim Marshall..............................   499
  Additional views of Jeff Miller................................   502
  Additional views of Jim Marshall...............................   503
  Additional views of Cathy McMorris.............................   508
  Dissenting views of Cynthia McKinney...........................   510


109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-452

======================================================================




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                _______
                                

  May 5, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Hunter, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5122]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.
    The amendments are as follows:
    The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the 
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the 
reported bill.
    The title of the bill is amended to relfect the amendment 
to the text of the bill.

                EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

    The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 5122. The title of 
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the 
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as 
amended.

                                PURPOSE

    The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2007 for procurement and for research, development, test 
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2007 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working 
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2007: (a) the 
personnel strength for each active duty component of the 
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the 
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed 
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the 
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) 
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel 
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel 
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military construction 
and family housing; (6) Authorize emergency appropriations for 
increased costs due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
Enduring Freedom; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2007 for the Department of Energy national security programs; 
(8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense 
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2007 for the Maritime Administration.

            RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS

    The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The 
bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts 
provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following 
categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement; 
research, development, test and evaluation; operation and 
maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and 
military construction and family housing. The bill also 
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and 
the Maritime Administration.
    Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in 
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military 
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of 
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide 
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.

                  SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL

    The President requested budget authority of $513.3 billion 
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2007. 
Of this amount, the President requested $491.5 billion for the 
Department of Defense, including $16.7 billion for military 
construction and family housing and $50 billion for estimated 
emergency costs for the Global War on Terror. The defense 
budget request for fiscal year 2007 also included $17.0 billion 
for Department of Energy national security programs and the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
    The committee recommends an overall level of $512.9 billion 
in budget authority. This amount represents an increase of 
approximately $21.4 billion from the amount authorized for 
appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).

                    SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

    The defense authorization act provides authorization for 
appropriations but does not generally provide budget authority. 
Budget authority is provided in appropriations acts. In order 
to relate the recommendations to the budget resolution, matters 
in addition to the dollar authorizations contained in this bill 
must be taken into account. A number of programs in the 
national defense function are authorized in other legislation. 
The following table summarizes authorizations included in the 
bill for fiscal year 2007 and, in addition, summarizes the 
implications of the committee action for the budget authority 
totals for national defense (budget function 050).


                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007, reflects the House Armed Services Committee's 
steadfast support of the courageous, professional and dedicated 
men and women of the United States armed forces and the 
committee's appreciation for the sacrifices they make to 
accomplish their required missions. Events of the last year--
ranging from on-going operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to 
robust counter-terrorism efforts around the globe to time-
sensitive disaster and humanitarian responses both at home and 
abroad--serve to highlight the United States military's 
flexibility and responsiveness in defending our nation's 
interests and addressing security challenges, wherever and 
whenever they may arise.
    For example, with the support of our coalition partners and 
over 220,000 Iraqi Security Forces personnel, members of the 
United States military helped to establish secure, stable 
conditions under which more than 12 million Iraqis could cast 
their votes for new national assembly representatives last 
December. That month also figured prominently in Afghanistan, 
where United States, Afghan and allied forces maintained 
security and stability as 351 men and women from all provinces, 
tribes and ethnic groups were inaugurated into the National 
Assembly. At home, United States forces actively contributed to 
Hurricane Katrina relief efforts with approximately 20,000 
Active Duty and 50,000 National Guard troops providing military 
support to civil authorities.
    The committee considers it critical that the capabilities 
and capacity of the armed forces continue to improve so they 
can accomplish the full range of diverse 21st century missions, 
minimize risks associated with such challenges and effectively 
engage in hostilities, when necessary, as far from American 
shores as possible. Thus, the committee's top priority remains 
ensuring that our military personnel receive the best 
equipment, weapons systems and training possible. As such, H.R. 
5122 would provide for both near- and longer-term military 
personnel and force structure requirements. It also highlights 
the need for improvements in acquisition processes and 
cooperation among key federal departments and agencies.

Taking Care of Our Military Personnel

    Through H.R. 5122, the committee continues its support for 
the outstanding Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, who 
selflessly make significant personal sacrifices to protect and 
defend our nation. To ensure that the United States armed 
forces remain robust enough to meet the full range of 21st 
Century security challenges, particularly those related to the 
Global War on Terrorism, the committee recommends for Fiscal 
Year 2007 additional active duty growth of 30,000, or 6 
percent, for the Army and 5,000, or about 3 percent, for the 
Marine Corps above the budget request. These recommendations 
would bring the Army end strength to 512,400 and the Marine 
Corps to 180,000. In addition, the committee supports the 
Department of the Army's decision to request an Army National 
Guard (ARNG) end strength of 350,000 and recommends adding 
about 2,300 full-time ARNG support personnel. To support this 
additional manpower, H.R. 5122 would increase ARNG funding by 
$789 million for personnel and equipment costs.
    H.R. 5122 also reflects the committee's on-going commitment 
to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of 
servicemembers' benefits. The committee recommends an across-
the-board pay raise, which would decrease the 4.5 percent gap 
between military and private sector pay to about 4.0 percent. 
Moreover, this legislation completes the transition to full 
TRICARE health program coverage for selected reserve personnel 
and, in light of the Department of Defense's proposed TRICARE 
cost-sharing arrangement, requires further study to ensure that 
a comprehensive policy and fiscal basis for sustaining future 
military health care benefits are in place. H.R. 5122 also 
improves programs for our nation's wounded military personnel 
and the surviving family members of those who have died or have 
been seriously injured in service.

Balancing Near- and Longer-Term Military Capabilities

    The committee believes strongly that the Department of 
Defense must not focus on long-term military capabilities at 
the expense of resetting and recapitalizing the warfighting 
force that is serving the United States so well in current 
operations. In particular, this legislation sends a clear 
signal that force protection remains this committee's top 
priority. Through oversight hearings, briefings and numerous 
trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, committee members continue to 
follow the significant threat to our soldiers and marines from 
improvised explosive devices (IEDs), or makeshift road-side 
bombs. H.R. 5122 reflects the committee's initiative to ``take 
back the roads'' and provide the best available IED jamming 
devices and persistent surveillance capability this includes 
$109.7 million for jamming devices that will prevent the radio-
initiation of road-side bombs, which currently cause the 
majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $100 
million for at least 10 manned persistent surveillance aircraft 
to patrol road segments and other areas where IED activity is 
greatest.
    H.R. 5122 also provides insight into how the committee 
believes the Department of Defense should strike the right 
balance between accepting technical risk and providing 
increased capabilities to these warfighters. It reflects the 
committee's continuing concerns about the long lead times 
required for major systems and the possibility that programs do 
not focus adequately on the near-term requirements of the 
United States armed forces.
    For example, the committee questions how the Department of 
the Army plans to fund the Future Combat System (FCS), the 
Modular Force Initiative and reset programs--three costly 
efforts that would require funding in excess of the funds 
programmed for the next five years. H.R. 5122 reflects the 
committee's decision to balance the health and capability of 
the current force with the future needs of the Army by reducing 
the FCS program by $326 million and requiring a Defense 
Acquisition Board review of the FCS program.
    In addition to reflecting concerns about the growing cost 
of the FCS program, this legislation puts into place spending 
limits on programs for other major programs for which cost 
estimates are rapidly increasing. These legislative initiatives 
would contain shipbuilding costs by holding the Department of 
the Navy accountable to their cost estimates on the CVN-21 
aircraft carrier, the Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA-R) 
amphibious assault ship, and the LPD-17 Landing Platform Dock 
amphibious ship and would increase competition for elements of 
the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) and next generation destroyer 
(DD(X)) programs.
    The committee notes that the Fiscal Year 2007 budget 
request included $2 billion for the Department of the Air 
Force's F-22 aircraft program. However, despite the Fiscal Year 
2006 projection for procurement of 29 F-22's in Fiscal Year 
2007, the funds requested for Fiscal Year 2007 were for 
subassemblies and not aircraft. Rather than authorize 
incremental funding for major aircraft programs, which Congress 
has not done in decades, the committee recommends an additional 
$1.4 billion for the full funding for procurement of 20 F-22 
aircraft.
    Over the last five years, the Global War on Terrorism has 
demonstrated time and again that U.S. intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities are critical 
to military effectiveness. The Department of Defense's most 
recent Quadrennial Defense Review, released in February 2006, 
highlighted gaps in ISR capabilities, and as a result of 
several hearings and briefings over the last year, the 
committee agrees that the United States currently has 
insufficient capacity and capability to meet all national and 
combatant commander requirements or provide tactical control 
over needed ISR assets at the small-unit level. One key area 
for improvement is persistent surveillance platforms, which the 
DOD could usefully deploy for operations ranging from combat 
and counterterrorism scenarios to stability and humanitarian 
operations and domestic crises. For example, unmanned aerial 
vehicles could provide a reliable battlefield picture on a 24-
hours-a-day/7-days-a-week basis. However, the committee notes 
with concern that despite highlighting existing ISR gaps, DOD 
officials decided to retire U-2 aircraft to achieve savings 
without identifying a similar capability that will be available 
in the near-term. H.R. 5122 would prohibit this retirement 
until the Department certifies to Congress that the U-2 program 
is not required to mitigate gaps in ISR capabilities.
    Finally, H.R. 5122 underscores the need for operationally 
responsive space capabilities. Adversaries recognize that the 
backbone of the United States military's command, control, 
communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance and 
reconnaissance (C4ISR) system is space-based, making it 
vulnerable to asymmetric attack and not easily reconstituted. 
The committee believes that the United States must develop a 
responsive space infrastructure, including flexible space 
launch and rapidly deployable C4ISR platforms, to address this 
vulnerability and reduce the temptation for adversaries to 
attack our space assets. This legislation would establish an 
Office of Operationally Responsive Space in the DOD to 
contribute to the development of low-cost rapid reaction 
payloads to fulfill joint military operational requirements.

Fielding the Right Equipment at the Right Time

    The rising cost and lengthening production schedules of 
major defense acquisition programs has led to more expensive 
platforms fielded in fewer numbers. The committee believes that 
internal DOD pressure to develop follow-on weapons systems that 
include all necessary and anticipated military capabilities may 
create an over-reliance on individual ``mega'' systems that are 
potentially more expensive and time-consuming to develop than 
less sophisticated but capable systems. These increases in cost 
and development time generally result in smaller numbers of 
platforms purchased, creating a ``high demand, low density'' 
situation in which the needed platforms have higher operational 
tempos, wear out faster, increase stress on military personnel, 
undermine the ability to conduct traditional presence missions 
intended to shape the strategic choices of potential 
adversaries and limit the strategic depth of United States 
forces responding to multiple contingencies. Moreover, the 
shrinking pool of skills and experience maintained by the 
acquisition workforce and the inadequate prioritization of 
combatant commands' requirements in deference to the military 
services' priorities are strong concerns of the committee. At 
the end of the day, the Department needs to recognize that its 
acquisition process must result in cost-effectively `putting 
metal on targets'--which in some cases will not require costly, 
leading-edge technologies. H.R. 5122 would address these issues 
by requiring training programs, improving management oversight 
and internal controls and closely monitoring implementation of 
acquisition reform in the Department of Defense.

Developing Partnerships

    The committee notes that international coalition partners 
have proven essential to military successes in Afghanistan, 
Iraq and elsewhere and appreciates the diplomatic, financial 
and military contributions made by foreign governments to the 
Global War on Terrorism. However, the committee believes that 
several key federal departments and agencies may lack the same 
operational commitment to success in the on-the-ground war 
effort.
    Achieving United States security objectives requires the 
integration of all national power--political, military and 
economic. In many cases, non-military departments and agencies 
lack planning, surge and overseas deployment capabilities, and 
the interagency process--which coordinates national-level 
policy development--has not been effective in executing 
national security policy. As a result, our servicemembers 
routinely fill gaps in civil capabilities, such as 
reconstruction efforts, coordination of humanitarian relief and 
training and equipping police forces. These missions are in 
addition to the full range of military operational requirements 
and may, in some cases, place an unfair burden on our armed 
forces.
    H.R. 5122 would require that the President assess the non-
DOD elements required to achieve the full spectrum of U.S. 
national security interests, including organizational 
structures, planning and assessment capabilities, information-
sharing policies, command and control systems, personnel 
policies and acquisition authorities. The President would also 
provide specific legislative proposals to improve interagency 
capacity and enhance civilian capabilities for national 
security purposes.

Supplemental Funding

    The committee recommends authorization of $50 billion in 
funds to support the defense activities principally associated 
with Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring 
Freedom (OEF). These funds are designated for emergency 
contingency operations to support force protection equipment, 
operational needs and military personnel requirements of the 
units deployed and engaged in the Global War on Terrorism.
    Included in the force protection recommendation is funding 
for up-armored Humvees, tactical wheeled vehicle 
recapitalization and modernization programs for the most 
heavily used vehicles in OIF and OEF, night vision devices and 
improvised explosive device jammers. In addition, the committee 
recognizes the need to replenish critical small-arms and 
ammunition procurement programs, including funding for the M16 
rifle, M240 medium machine gun and M4 carbine modifications, 
and .50 caliber cartridges, 120mm tank ammunition canisters and 
155mm high explosive projectiles. Incorporated in the day-to-
day operation recommendation is funding to pay for food, fuel, 
spare parts, maintenance, transportation, base expenses, as 
well as costs incurred by stateside installations for increased 
mobilizations and demobilizations due to OIF and OEF.
    Over the past four years, the committee has recommended 
increases in the active component manpower to sustain the full 
range of capabilities required of the mission assigned to the 
armed forces. The committee recommends funding a cumulative 
active component increase of 30,000 for the Army and 5,000 for 
the Marine Corps over the budget request.

                                HEARINGS

    Committee consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 results from hearings 
that began on February 1, 2006, and that were completed on 
April 7, 2006. The full committee conducted fifteen sessions. 
In addition, a total of thirty-two sessions were conducted by 6 
different subcommittees on various titles of the bill.

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $84.2 
billion for procurement. This represents a $6.2 billion 
increase from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2006.
    The committee recommends authorization of $85.9 billion, an 
increase of $1.7 billion from the fiscal year 2007 request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
procurement program are identified in the table below. Major 
issues are discussed following the table.


                       Aircraft Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $3.6 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $3.7 billion, an increase of $148.3 
million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


AH-64 modern signal processing unit

    The budget request contained $775.6 million for AH-64 
modifications, but no funds were requested for the modern 
signal processing unit (MSPU) initial integration and 
production for the AH-64.
    The MSPU is an embedded digital vibration diagnostic 
technology already developed by the Army for the AH-64A Apache 
and the AH-64D Longbow to monitor the tail rotor gearbox, the 
intermediate gearbox, and the auxiliary power unit clutch for 
incipient failures. The MSPU is a direct replacement for the 
30-year-old analog signal processing unit which is known to 
experience high failure rates and shown to be unreliable in 
detecting incipient gearbox failures. The improved diagnostics 
of the MSPU will improve flight safety and reduce maintenance 
test costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to 
integrate the modern signal processing unit into the AH-64A and 
AH-64D production line and to procure the MSPU for fielding as 
spares for both the active Army and Army National Guard Apache 
and Longbow aircraft.

Joint cargo aircraft

    The committee supports the decision to establish a joint 
program office and to utilize a single capability development 
document as the basis for requirements for the Joint Cargo 
Aircraft (JCA). The committee believes that cost control is the 
most critical factor in determining the likelihood for success 
of the JCA program, and that the imperative for cost 
containment will necessitate a strict control of requirements 
and the use of maximum jointness and commonality in training, 
sustainment and maintenance. The committee recommends that the 
joint program office work to develop an acquisition and 
sustainment strategy for JCA that is joint in all phases of the 
program. The acquisition and sustainment strategy should 
address the purchase of sufficient rights in technical data 
required to provide competition in maintaining and sustaining 
the aircraft throughout its complete lifecycle. The committee 
notes that it has included a provision (section 802) that would 
require acquisition programs to acquire sufficient technical 
data required for lifecycle sustainment. The committee also 
notes that the core logistics capability for cargo aircraft 
currently in the Department of Defense (DOD) inventory resides 
largely in the Air Force Air Logistics Centers and the 
committee believes the JCA should be identified as a core 
logistics capability under subsection (a)(2) of section 2464 of 
title 10, United States Code, with no waiver under subsection 
(b), if the JCA is acquired in sufficient numbers to warrant 
such a designation. At a minimum, the Department should acquire 
the technical data necessary to enable the government to 
utilize its core logistics capability to maintain the JCA, if 
required.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the congressional defense committees a report on the plan to 
acquire and sustain the JCA. The committee directs that the 
report be delivered no later than 60 days after the acquisition 
and sustainment strategy is approved by the appropriate 
milestone decision authority. The committee further directs 
that the report shall include DOD's recommendations regarding 
whether or not the JCA will be identified as a core logistics 
capability under subsection (a)(2) of section 2464 of title 10, 
United States Code, and if so identified, whether the 
Department intends to waive the limitation on contracting under 
subsection (b) of such section for the JCA.

HH-60 aircraft wireless intercom system upgrade

    The budget request contained $30.9 million for H-60 
modifications, but included no funds for procurement of non-
encrypted aircraft wireless intercom system (AWIS) upgrades for 
active and reserve HH-60 medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) 
helicopters.
    The committee notes there is no integrated or qualified 
wireless communication system onboard HH-60 rotorcraft for use 
by crewmembers. Consequently, this does not allow onboard 
medical personnel, while in flight or during ground operations, 
freedom to use both hands to perform emergency medical 
procedures while communicating with the flight crew. Early 
fielding of non-encrypted AWIS would eliminate the operational 
hazards and restrictions inherent in the existing tethered 
system for MEDEVAC crews.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to 
modify HH-60 rotorcraft with wireless intercom systems.

UH-60A to UH-60L helicopter upgrade

    The budget request included $554.6 million in aircraft 
procurement for 38 UH-60M aircraft, but included no funds for 
the non-recurring costs of replacement of UH-60A engine 
transmission and engine upgrades as part of the UH-60A upgrade 
program.
    The committee notes the significant reduction in flying 
hour costs, of over $700 per hour, offered by replacement of 
the original UH-60A engines.
    The committee recommends an additional $15.0 million for 
the non-recurring development and engineering costs of 
upgrading the UH-60A engine transmission and engine to the UH-
60L configuration.

                       Missile Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $1.4 
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1.5 billion, an increase of $140.0 million, 
for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Patriot modifications

    The budget request contained $69.9 million for the 
procurement of Patriot modifications.
    The committee understands that the Army has an unfunded 
requirement to transition or pure fleet existing Patriot 
Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) missile battalions to an upgraded 
PAC-3 missile battalion configuration capable of deploying the 
PAC-3 missile by the end of fiscal year 2009.
    The committee supports this initiative and recommends 
$209.9 million, an increase of $140.0 million for the purpose 
of restarting the PAC-3 production line, and for upgrading 
tactical Patriot fire units to the PAC-3 configuration 
capability.

TOW missile inventory

    The budget request contained $31.6 million to procure 949 
TOW missiles.
    The committee recognizes the Army and Marine Corps face a 
significant challenge in maintaining an adequate inventory of 
TOW missiles. The TOW requirement is perceived to be at a 
minimum 20,000 missiles but the Army's current program of 
record supports an inventory of only 6,500 missiles. The 
committee is aware the Army and Marine Corps have fired more 
than 6,000 TOW missiles in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), yet 
by 2009, based on missile shelf life, the Army will have fewer 
TOW missiles in its inventory than it had at the start of the 
OIF.
    While the committee notes the Army's intent to increase TOW 
procurement and encourages the Army to proceed with this course 
of action, the committee also notes the Army staff has not 
defined a minimum warfighting inventory requirement for TOW 
missiles.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 15, 2007, that details the acquisition strategy for TOW 
procurement across the Future Years Defense Program and 
specifies the current, minimum warfighting requirement for the 
TOW missile.

               Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $2.3 
billion for Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The 
committee recommends authorization of $2.3 billion, an increase 
of $33.1 million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are 
identified in the table below. Major changes to the Army 
request are discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Army current to future force modernization strategy

    The Army is implementing its current to future force 
modernization strategy at a time when U.S. ground forces 
continue to operate at high operational tempos in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as fill a critical role in the global war 
on terrorism. The committee notes that while the Future Combat 
Systems (FCS) is the Army's long-term transformation strategy, 
modularity and equipment reset constitutes the near-term 
strategy. Given fiscal realities, the Army's challenge of 
simultaneously funding reset and modularity, and the high 
technical risks associated with the development of FCS, the 
committee is concerned the Army may sacrifice the warfighting 
capability of the current force in order to resource FCS.
    While conceptually supporting modularity, the committee 
continues to have concerns about the details, not the least of 
which is its escalating costs, uncertainty in adequate 
resources for active Army and Army National Guard equipping 
strategies, and whether the new modular designs for brigade 
combat teams (BCTs) will provide sufficient capability for 
sustained, high-intensity combat operations. Specifically, the 
committee is concerned about the Army's decision to field 
modular heavy BCTs with only two maneuver battalions, instead 
of three. The committee understands that Stryker BCTs have 
three maneuver battalions and FCS BCTs will also have three 
maneuver battalions. Accordingly, the committee is concerned 
that the Army's decision to field modular heavy BCTs with two 
instead of three maneuver battalions is resource vice strategy 
driven.
    The committee notes that the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office, and the 
Institute for Defense Analysis have also expressed similar 
concerns in reference to modularity. The committee further 
notes soldiers returning from Iraq have indicated that while 
technology can be a critical combat enabler, technology alone 
cannot serve as a replacement for force structure, ``boots on 
the ground.'' The committee commends the Army for adding a 
reconnaissance battalion to the modular brigade design. The 
committee believes that although the reconnaissance battalion 
is a critical force multiplier, it alone should not be required 
to perform missions that would normally be performed by a third 
maneuver battalion.
    The Army has stated that the procurement funding for 
modularity is within the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) 
and the procurement funding for FCS is beyond the FYDP. 
However, the committee notes this position is not supported by 
the information provided by the Army to the committee. The 
committee agrees with GAO's assessment that given the degree of 
uncertainty in modularity cost estimates and the likely cost 
growth from FCS; the Army's modularity and FCS programs are at 
risk of becoming unaffordable.
            Army modularity
    The committee continues to support the Army's restructuring 
from a division based force to a more readily deployable 
brigade centric force, a process known as modularity, and the 
committee understands that modularity remains a top priority of 
the Chief of Staff of the Army. However, the committee remains 
concerned that the Army has not provided sufficient information 
for Congress to assess the capabilities, costs, affordability, 
and risks of the Army's modularity implementation plans. The 
committee notes that the Army's cost estimate for completing 
modularity by 2011 has grown from an initial estimate of $28.0 
billion in 2004 to a current estimate of $52.5 billion. 
Further, in the ``2005 Modularity'' report submitted to 
Congress, the Army states a requirement for 77 brigade combat 
teams (BCTs). Of the 77 BCTs, 35 were to be heavy BCTs 
consisting of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. In 
the ``2006 Modularity'' report and the 2007 budget request the 
requirement is for 70 BCTs, of which 33 would be heavy BCTs. 
The committee is concerned about the Army's rationale to reduce 
the total BCT requirement and furthermore, it remains unclear 
to the committee what impact the current modularity strategy 
will have on meeting the needs of the combatant commanders.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to obtain from each combatant commander, an assessment of the 
Army's modularity initiative to include issues or concerns 
regarding modularity designs, equipment, personnel and/or 
rotation strategy. Further, the committee directs the Secretary 
to submit a report, including the assessments from the 
combatant commanders, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services with the submission 
of the President's budget for fiscal year 2008.
            Heavy brigade combat teams
    The budget request included $171.1 million for the M1A2 
Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) tank and $285.0 million 
for the Bradley base sustainment program.
    The committee remains concerned about the Abrams tank and 
Bradley fighting vehicle modernization programs and the 
associated funding. Current operations continue to demonstrate 
that there are few conflicts where main battle tanks and 
Bradley fighting vehicles do not play a significant role in 
ensuring the survivability and offensive firepower of the armed 
forces. The committee remains resolute in its assessment that 
the Army should pure fleet, at a minimum, 18 of its active 
component heavy brigade combat teams (BCTs) with the M1A2 
Abrams SEP tank and the Bradley A3 fighting vehicle.
    The committee notes that in the Army's March 2006 report to 
Congress, ``The Army Modular Initiative,'' it clearly states 
that one of the key criteria for modularity funding was 
``modernization of older equipment.'' The report further states 
that modularity equipment modernization includes major systems 
upgrades such as Apache and Chinook helicopters, but does not 
include the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank or the Bradley A3 as part of 
modernization. The committee believes that the M1A2 Abrams SEP 
tank and the Bradley A3 are critical components of modular 
heavy BCTs.
    The committee is concerned that the Army's current 
procurement strategy will not adequately fund the M1A2 Abrams 
SEP tank program and the Bradley A3 program, to at least the 
minimum economic quantity of approximately 60 and 144 per year, 
respectively. The committee is also concerned that the Army's 
current plan results in paying more to get fewer M1A2 Abrams 
SEP tanks and Bradley A3s, which will result in a significant 
delay in meeting the total requirement of 18 M1A2 Abrams SEP 
tanks and Bradley A3 heavy BCTs. The committee notes that even 
if the Army develops a plan that funds the M1A2 SEP tank and 
the Bradley A3 production at the minimum economic quantity it 
will take the Army up to 10 years to meet the total requirement 
for 18 M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and Bradley A3 equipped heavy BCTs.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to submit a report by February 28, 2007, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services providing the feasibility and rationale for multiyear 
procurement authority for the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and the 
Bradley A3. At a minimum, the report shall include theimpact 
that a multiyear procurement would have on the unit cost and the impact 
this authority would have on meeting the total M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and 
Bradley A3 requirement, consisting of 18 heavy BCTs.
            Abrams tank modernization
    The budget request included $171.1 million for 23 M1A2 
Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) retrofit tanks.
    The M1A2 Abrams SEP tank is an upgraded, fully digitized, 
first generation M1A2 Abrams tank which enhances lethality, 
survivability, and mobility, as well as providing improved 
situational awareness for its crew.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $128.9 
million for the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank program.
            Bradley base sustainment program
    The budget request included $285.0 million for 16 Bradley 
A3 fighting vehicles and 90 Operation Desert Storm (ODS) 
vehicles.
    The Bradley base sustainment program upgrades earlier 
variants of the Bradley A2 ODS and the Bradley A3 standard. The 
Bradley A3 is more lethal and survivable; provides enhanced 
command and control; and allows shared situational awareness. 
The Bradley A3 continues to maintain combat overmatch above 
current and future threat forces and remains compatible with 
the M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program tank.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $147.0 
million for the Bradley A3 program.

Integrated air burst weapon system

    The budget request contained $32.3 million for the 
integrated air burst weapon system family.
    The committee understands this funding line would provide 
procurement dollars for the low rate initial production of the 
Objective Individual Combat Weapon, Increment One (OICW-1) 
program; a family of small arms that are projected to be 
replacements for existing carbines, rifles, and light machine 
guns. The committee is aware that the official request for 
proposals (RFP) for the OICW-1, originally announced in May 
2005 was delayed and now has been terminated. The committee is 
also aware that the program was redirected to the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) for further review.
    The committee notes the OICW-1 program has not yet been 
reviewed by the JROC nor has an estimated date for a review 
been established. The committee understands that pending the 
outcome of this future JROC review, the new RFP would 
incorporate additional joint requirements that would require 
further development and refinement. The committee also notes 
the Army is currently restructuring the procurement program for 
small arms in support of the recently approved small arms 
acquisition strategy, and recognizes these funds would be 
redistributed to other small arms acquisition programs in 
accordance with this new strategy.
    Therefore, the committee believes the budget request for 
the integrated air burst weapon system family is not justified 
and recommends a decrease of $32.3 million. The committee also 
recommends the redistribution of these funds to other small 
arms acquisition programs as reflected in this report based on 
urgent need and in support of the Army's recently restructured 
small arms acquisition strategy.

                      Ammunition Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $1.9 
billion for Ammunition Procurement, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $1.7 billion, a decrease of $211.7 
million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Ammunition Procurement, Army program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Desert optimized equipment

    The budget request contained $10.3 million for ammunition 
peculiar equipment, but included no funds for desert optimized 
ammunition peculiar equipment.
    The committee understands that the harsh desert conditions 
of Iraq and Afghanistan are causing ammunition peculiar 
equipment to degrade at a much greater rate than anticipated. 
The committee notes that there is great benefit to upgrading 
forward deployed ammunition peculiar equipment with desert 
optimized equipment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to 
optimize ammunition peculiar equipment for desert environments.

Modernization of .50 caliber ammunition production line

    The budget request included $116.2 million for 
modernization of ammunition production facilities, but included 
no funds to modernize the line for production of .50 caliber 
ammunition.
    The committee notes that much of the existing facilities 
and equipment used in the production of .50 caliber ammunition 
date from the era of World War II. While this equipment has 
been able to support .50 caliber ammunition production in 
recent years, the production line is extremely difficult to 
maintain and the obsolete nature of this equipment limits the 
ability of the Army to increase production quantities on short 
notice.
    The committee directs the Army to develop a plan to 
modernize the production line for .50 caliber ammunition, and 
submit the plan to the congressional defense committees no 
later than March 1, 2007. Furthermore, the plan should include 
a proposed schedule for modernization consistent with continued 
production of .50 caliber ammunition at levels similar to those 
occurring in 2006, and a recommended funding program associated 
with this schedule.

                        Other Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $7.7 
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $7.0 billion, a decrease of $211.7 million, 
for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Other Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Bridge to future networks

    The budget request contained $340.2 million for bridge to 
future networks.
    The Bridge to Future Networks program is comprised of two 
elements: area common user system (ACUS) modernization and 
joint network node (JNN). The committee is concerned about the 
Army's plan to meet its battle command network requirement for 
both the current and future force. The Army began the 
acquisition of the JNN with funds appropriated in the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on 
Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13) that would 
provide an urgent warfighting demand for a networking 
capability in support of the global war on terrorism. The JNN 
is not a program of record and the committee believes that 
continued procurement of JNN through emergency supplemental 
appropriations is not appropriate.
    The committee further understands that the Department of 
Defense's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and the 
General Counsel have determined that JNN should not proceed 
beyond low rate initial production before completing 
operational testing.
    The committee also understands that the Army is developing 
the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) program at 
the same time that it is procuring the JNN. According to the 
Army, WIN-T is the foundation for network-centric brigade 
operations and is applicable to not just the Future Combat 
Systems (FCS) force, but also to today's current force of 
modular brigade combat teams.
    The committee is aware the Army has not developed a plan 
that assesses how best to transition from JNN to WIN-T. It 
remains unclear to the committee whether the Army will attempt 
to accelerate development of WIN-T or pursue a parallel course 
that continues to procure JNN while realigning the WIN-T 
program with FCS. Therefore, the committee included a provision 
(section 114) in this Act that would require the Secretary of 
the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees on the analysis of how the JNN and the WIN-T will be 
integrated and whether or not there are opportunities to 
leverage JNN technologies and equipment as part of the WIN-T 
development effort.

Combat medical support

    The budget request contained $20.5 million for combat 
medical support, but included no funding for Golden Hour--4 
units of red blood cells (GH4) and Golden Hour--30 units of red 
blood cells or frozen plasma (GH30) blood bags. The committee 
recommends more fully equipping the U.S. military with Golden 
Hour technology blood bags to enable safe transport of blood to 
the battlefield, resulting in more saved lives during military 
conflicts and increasing the availability of useable blood.
    The committee recommends an increase of $17.0 million for 
Golden Hour blood bags.

Immersive group simulation

    The budget request included $16.9 million for the Army's 
networked system of manned simulators, but included no funds 
for its immersive group simulation project.
    The committee supports simulation efforts by the Army to 
replicate elements on the combined arms battlefield. This 
reduces overall training costs and provides training that might 
otherwise be foregone because of limitations on live training 
ranges. Immersive group simulations complement and enhance 
training programs by allowing groups of trainers to place 
groups of soldiers into synthetic training environments that 
replicate real world conditions to stress reactive and decision 
making capabilities, train on appropriate tactics and 
techniques, and make mistakes where the consequences are non-
lethal.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 
million for the immersive group simulation project.

M915A3 production

    The budget request contained $31.2 million for truck, 
tractor, and line-haul equipment, including funds to procure 
160 M915A3 line-haul tractor trucks.
    The M915A3 is used by Army transportation companies to 
transport breakbulk, containers, water and petroleum over 
primary and secondary roads. The committee notes that previous 
models of the M915 are experiencing operational readiness rates 
below the Army goal and are difficult to support. The committee 
also notes that there are significant inventory shortages 
across the Army, but particularly in transportation companies 
of the national guard and reserve forces.
    The committee recommends $40.5 million for truck, tractor, 
and line-haul equipment, an increase of $9.3 million to 
accelerate fielding of the M915A3 to the Army National Guard.

Simulated combat training capability for Army National Guard

    The budget request contained $38.5 million for combat 
training centers support and other associated costs, but 
included no funds for simulated combat training capability 
systems for the Army National Guard.
    The committee understands this system would provide 
effective pre-mobilization and post-mobilization home-station 
training for Army National Guard units engaged in the global 
war on terrorism. The committee recognizes that although there 
is no substitute for the robust live-fire and simulated 
training capabilities provided at Combat Training Centers 
(CTCs) and through the Joint National Training Capability 
(JNTC), this particular system would supplement CTC and JNTC 
activities, as well as provide additional training 
opportunities for Army National Guard units at their home 
stations. Furthermore, the committee believes that this 
additional training capability would potentially contribute to 
more effective CTC and JNTC training exercises for national 
guard units.
    The committee recommends $47.8 million, an increase of $9.3 
million to provide simulated, flexible and expandable combat 
training capability to Army National Guard units.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $10.9 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $10.8 billion, a decrease of $108.1 
million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


EP-3E service life extension

    The budget request contained $56.8 million for EP-3E 
aircraft modifications, but included no funds for service life 
extension modifications in lieu of the Aerial Common Sensor 
(ACS) program cancellation.
    The committee is concerned about the impact the cancelled 
ACS program may have on the qualitative service life of the EP-
3E. The committee understands that continued support of the 
legacy EP-3E airframes and mission systems will be tenuous 
until a viable joint or service-specific replacement is 
identified and fully operational. The EP-3E capability 
contributes significantly to the national collection posture of 
the defense intelligence community and combatant commanders.
    The committee understands that the EP-3E program was not 
fully prepared for the cancellation of the ACS, and that 
significant deficiencies to aircraft mission systems are 
expected in fiscal year 2007.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $66.8 million, an 
increase of $10.0 million for additional service life extension 
modifications needed to sustain the EP-3E.

H-53 series modifications

    The budget request contained $28.3 million for H-53 series 
modifications, but included no funds for the advanced 
helicopter emergency egress lighting system (ADHEELS).
    The ADHEELS provides crew escape lighting for helicopters 
in the event of water impact. The committee understands that 
the Department of the Navy has selected ADHEELS as its future 
helicopter escape lighting system due to its superior 
performance, significantly increased operational reliability, 
and lower life cycle costs, and has recently equipped all SH-60 
helicopters with this system; and therefore, the committee 
recommends that the ADHEELS also be installed on the Navy's 
fleet of H-53 helicopters.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $31.3 million for H-
53 series modification, an increase of $3.0 million to begin 
the installation of ADHEELS in the Navy's H-53 helicopter 
fleet.

P-3C modernization

    The budget request contained $204.6 million for P-3C 
aircraft modifications, but contained no funds for the P-3C 
high resolution digital recorder.
    The committee understands the P-3C aircraft has been used 
extensively in the global war on terrorism as a surveillance 
and targeting platform to provide time-sensitive targeting 
information to ground forces and other airborne assets. As part 
of the P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) 
upgrade, a next generation high resolution combined video and 
radar recorder has been developed to replace the legacy 
recorder. The committee understands that without key technology 
upgrades and aircraft parts obsolescence management, the P-3C 
ability to meet the Navy's Fleet Response Plan will be 
degraded.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $207.6 million, an 
increase of $3.0 million for procurement of ten high resolution 
digital recorders.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $2.6 
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $2.5 billion, a decrease of $38.0 million, for 
fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 
following the table.


                        Item of Special Interest


Conventional Trident modification

    The budget request contained $957.6 million for Trident II 
missile modifications, including $38.0 million for the 
conventional Trident modification (CTM) program. The budget 
request also contained $111.1 million for strategic missile 
systems equipment, including $12.0 million for CTM.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
working to develop the prompt, precision, global conventional 
strike capability called for in the 2001 Nuclear Posture 
Review, and in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. The 
committee also understands that the existing Trident II weapons 
system provides an opportunity to develop a long range 
conventional strike capability by leveraging existing 
technology at relatively low risk.
    However, the committee is concerned that the development of 
this conventional ballistic missile capability for a submarine 
that has historically carried nuclear armed ballistic missiles 
could cause a missile launch misinterpretation regarding which 
type of a warhead a ballistic missile may be carrying. The 
committee is encouraged that the Department has begun to engage 
military and civilian leaders of the international community to 
discuss the United States' intent behind this conventional 
strike capability, and is also developing measures to preclude 
misinterpretation of a conventional launch.
    However, until this vital policy matter can be resolved, 
the committee recommends $919.6 million for Trident II missile 
modifications, a decrease of $38.0 million, and $99.1 million 
for strategic missile systems equipment, a decrease of $12.0 
million.

              Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $789.9 
million for Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps. The 
committee recommends authorization of $758.8 million, a 
decrease of $31.2 million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps program are 
identified in the table below. Major changes to the Navy & 
Marine Corps request are discussed following the table.


                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $10.6 
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $11.2 billion, an increase of 
$604.6 million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


313 ship navy force structure

    The committee applauds the Chief of Naval Operations for 
developing the Navy's future force structure and the 
accompanying long-term shipbuilding plan to build it. This 
long-term plan provides the shipbuilding industry a view into 
the future that has been lacking. However, the committee is 
concerned that the plan was developed using unrealistic 
assumptions that will not make the plan executable. Of greatest 
concern to the committee is the affordability of the ship 
construction plan. According to the Navy's estimates, execution 
of this plan requires a significant increase in shipbuilding 
funds from $8.7 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $17.2 billion in 
fiscal year 2011. Obtaining these additional funds in a period 
of anticipated federal spending reductions will be difficult. 
The plan also assumes that individual ship acquisition programs 
can avoid the cost growth that has plagued most Navy ship 
acquisition programs.
    The committee is concerned about the affordability of the 
Navy's long-term shipbuilding plan, recreating much of the 
uncertainty about the future of naval shipbuilding that the 
plan was designed to eliminate.

Aircraft carrier force structure requirements

    The committee is concerned by the Chief of Naval 
Operation's plan to retire the USS John F. Kennedy. According 
to the Navy's long range shipbuilding plan, if the Navy retires 
the Kennedy, then the aircraft carrier force will drop to 11 
between now and 2012, and then drop to 10 in 2013 and 2014. 
With the commissioning of CVN-78 in 2015, the aircraft carrier 
force increases to 11 and then back to 12 in 2019 and beyond.
    The committee believes it is the objective of the Chief of 
Naval Operations to maintain a force of 12 aircraft carriers 
since the long range shipbuilding plan shows a total of 12 
aircraft carriers between 2019 and the far range of the plan in 
2036. It is apparent to the committee that the decision to 
allow the force structure to fall to 10 in the near future is 
fiscally rather than operationally driven.
    The committee believes that the Navy should continue to 
maintain no less than 12 operational aircraft carriers in order 
to meet potential global commitments. The committee believes 
that a reduction below 12 aircraft carriers puts the nation in 
a position of unacceptable risk.

Arleigh Burke class destroyer modernization

    The budget request contained $2.2 million for the Arleigh 
Burke class destroyer (DDG-51) modernization program.
    The committee understands that the DDG-51 modernization 
program is a comprehensive mid-life modernization effort to 
ensure mission relevant service life of 35 years for the 
Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The modernization will include 
hull, mechanical and electrical technology upgrades to reduce 
manning and total ownership costs, combat system integrated 
warfighting improvements, and installation of an open 
architecture computing environment to allow future ballistic 
missile defense, air defense and other upgrades. The committee 
also understands that this modernization effort will focus on 
earlier Flight I ships (DDG-51 to DDG-71) to ensure they 
support the Chief of Naval Operations Sea Power 21 requirements 
of Sea Strike, Sea Shield and ForceNet. The committee believes 
that because the next generation destroyer, DD(X), will not be 
fielded until 2013, the DDG-51 fleet must be modernized at an 
accelerated rate to take earlier advantage of the operating 
cost reductions and the improved combat system capabilities.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $200.0 
million to accelerate the modernization program by two years.

Battleship transfer

    In the conference report (H. Rept. 109-360) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, 
the committee included instructions regarding the transfer of 
the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa to the Commonwealth 
of Virginia and State of California, respectively, and the 
President's reversion authority pursuant to a national 
emergency. The committee seeks to clarify that the battleships 
USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa must be regarded as potential 
mobilization assets and both the recipients and the U.S. Navy 
are instructed to treat them as such. The committee notes that 
the following measures should be taken: (1) the ships must not 
be altered in any way that would impair their military utility; 
(2) the ships must be preserved in their present condition 
through the continued use of cathodic protection and 
dehumidification systems and any other preservation methods as 
needed; (3) spare parts and unique equipment such as 16-inch 
gun barrels and projectiles, be preserved in adequate numbers 
to support the two ships, if reactivated; and (4) the Navy must 
prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of the two battleships 
should they be returned to the Navy in the event of a national 
emergency.

Incremental funding for shipbuilding

    The budget request recommends incremental funding for 3 of 
the 7 ships in the request, including for the first time 
construction of a surface combatant, the next-generation 
destroyer DD(X). Furthermore, during the consideration of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163), the Navy sought and was granted the authority to 
use incremental funding for the next aircraft carrier, which 
will be recorded as procured in 2008.
    The committee remains concerned that the use of incremental 
funding is not a solution to the Navy's problem in funding 
shipbuilding. While incremental funding can allow the Navy to 
smooth out the dramatic spikes in shipbuilding funding required 
as a result of aircraft carrier construction every four or five 
years, it does not fundamentally increase the number of ships 
that a given amount of money will purchase. During the 
committee's hearings on shipbuilding, all witnesses emphasized 
the importance of program and funding stability as the top 
priority for reducing the cost of shipbuilding and sustaining 
the shipbuilding industrial base. The committee notes that 
Congress adopted the full funding policy in the 1950s in part 
because of a concern that incremental funding was detrimental 
to funding stability. Future congresses may find themselves 
unwilling, or unable, to fund completion of ships begun in 
prior years and only partially funded. The committee remains 
convinced that the full funding policy is the correct policy 
for funding shipbuilding.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
this year considered submission of a legislative proposal that 
would permanently authorize the use of ``split funding'' for 
aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious ships, and the 
Navy's fiscal year 2007shipbuilding plan already assumes such 
authority for the second LHA class amphibious assault ship. The 
committee has approved the use of split funding for certain ships in 
certain cases. However, the committee does not believe that a blanket 
policy supporting incremental funding for any class of ship is 
appropriate, and has not included such a provision in the bill.

Littoral combat ship program

    The committee is concerned about the uncertainty in the 
Navy's acquisition strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). 
The Navy recently announced its intention to continue with the 
Flight Zero design through fiscal year 2009. The Navy plans to 
procure 15 LCSs through this initial design phase. How long the 
Navy intends to continue with two separate designs for these 
vessels remains unclear. The committee believes that it is also 
unclear when the Navy will place this program into the 
discipline of the normal acquisition process with definitive 
and mature requirements and Director, Operational Test and 
Evaluation, review before continuing with procurement. The 
Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan calls for procuring 55 
LCSs, and the committee encourages the Navy to develop an 
acquisition strategy for the long-term that clarifies any 
ambiguity in the current build profile. The committee further 
encourages the Navy to downselect to one of the two LCS 
variants currently in procurement in order to achieve economy 
of scale, or present a compelling case to the congressional 
defense committees on why both variants should be procured.

Next generation destroyer

    The budget request contained $2.6 billion for split 
procurement of two next generation destroyers (DD(X)).
    The committee does not believe the DD(X) is affordable. The 
committee supports recent efforts by the Navy to ``design cost 
out'' of the lead ship and to focus on threshold instead of 
objective requirements in an effort to reduce the risk of cost 
growth. However, due to the unusually large number of new 
technologies being integrated on the next generation destroyer, 
the committee understands there is no prospect of being able to 
design and build the two lead ships for the $6.6 billion 
budgeted.
    The committee is concerned that the Navy is attempting to 
insert too much capability into a single platform. As a result, 
the DD(X) is now expected to displace over 14,000 tons and by 
the Navy's estimate, cost almost $3.3 billion each. Originally, 
the Navy proposed building 32 next generation destroyers, 
reduced that to 24, then finally to 7 in order to make the 
program affordable. In such small numbers, the committee 
struggles to see how the original requirements for the next 
generation destroyer, for example providing naval surface fire 
support, can be met. In this day of netted operations, the 
committee advocates reducing the capabilities resident on the 
next generation destroyer, to instead rely on the netted 
sensors and weapons systems of other ships in the strike group. 
By reducing the requirements for the DD(X), a smaller, less 
expensive destroyer could be procured in greater numbers.
    Because of its expense, the committee does not believe that 
DD(X) will be procured in sufficient numbers to meet the 
operational need. However, the committee does believe that the 
DD(X) program's engineering development models show the 
potential for some impressive advances in warfighting 
capability. The committee supports the construction of up to 
two DD(X)s to demonstrate technologies that could be 
incorporated into future, more affordable, major surface 
combatants. The committee recommends that these ships 
demonstrate as wide a range of technologies as is reasonably 
feasible, including both the advanced induction and permanent 
magnet motor propulsion concepts that were originally 
investigated for DD(X).
    Therefore, the committee recommends $2.6 billion to fund 
one next generation destroyer as a technology demonstrator.

Shipbuilding/ship repair industrial base capacity

    The committee believes that the ability to build naval 
ships and submarines is a critical national asset. Therefore, 
it is imperative that the United States sustain a healthy ship 
design, engineering and construction capability.
    The first tier shipbuilding/ship repair industrial base is 
made up of six private and four public shipyards. Since there 
is very little commercial large-ship shipbuilding currently 
being executed in these shipyards, all 10 shipyards are almost 
wholly dependent on Department of Defense (DOD) work for 
sustainment.
    The committee is concerned that the U.S. shipbuilding/ship 
repair industrial base has significant capacity beyond what is 
necessary for all anticipated DOD new construction and 
maintenance work, and believes that Navy ship acquisition 
programs are paying the price.
    The Navy recently published a long-term shipbuilding plan 
that supports the goal of building and maintaining a 313 ship 
Navy by 2020. Although this plan provides the needed 
``stability'' that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has been 
looking for, it does not appear to generate enough work to keep 
the major U.S. shipbuilders operating at their current 
capacity. Evidence of this is most obvious at General Dynamics 
Electric Boat Division where the contractor is planning to lay 
off hundreds of designers and engineers and thousands of 
production workers in the next several years. The plan to 
increase the procurement of Virginia class submarines from 1 to 
2 per year has been delayed for over 10 years and the latest 
plan has the increase happening in fiscal year 2012. Similar 
challenges will affect the shipyards now constructing the last 
of the DDG-51 destroyers. Those yards are starting to ramp up 
to build the next generation destroyer, however, the next 
generation destroyer is not expected to be built in a 
sufficient quantity to keep the current workforce fully 
employed.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report 
to the congressional defense committees on measures that can be 
taken to manage the capacity of the shipbuilding/ship repair 
industrial base in a manner that would make Navy shipbuilding 
more affordable. Such report shall be submitted by the 
submission of the President's request for fiscal year 2008, as 
required by section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.

Ship cost estimates

    The committee is deeply concerned about the process used 
for establishing the Navy's ship cost estimates. The committee 
notes that the original cost estimates on numerous existing 
ship classes have regularly been described by the Navy as 
inaccurate and unrealistic when those ships near completion of 
construction. The committee notes that in several cases it has 
been informed that ship cost estimates delivered to the 
committee in prior years either intentionally or 
unintentionally excluded certain known shipbuilding costs such 
as escalation, and that these cost estimates were known to be 
inaccurate on the day they were first delivered to the 
committee. The committee recommends that the process for 
deriving ship cost estimates be revised to ensure that all 
major known elements of ship cost are routinely included in all 
ship cost estimates.
    The committee notes that Sections 122, 123, and 124 of the 
bill would impose cost limitations on three current ship 
classes based on the Navy's latest costs estimates. The 
committee further notes that the imposition of these statutory 
cost limitations makes the need for a high level of confidence 
in the cost estimates for these ship classes unusually 
important. Accordingly, the committee directs that the 
Secretary of the Navy revalidate the cost estimates for CVN-21, 
for the ships currently programmed in the LHA Replacement 
program, and for the eight ships of the San Antonio class 
amphibious ship that follow the lead ship. The committee 
further directs that the revalidated costs estimates be 
submitted for review and approval by the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Finally, 
the committee directs that no later than July 1, 2006, the 
Secretary of the Navy submit a report in writing to the 
congressional defense committees containing the revalidated 
cost estimates for these ship classes including a certification 
by the Secretary that all known and anticipated major elements 
of cost have been included in the estimate.

Virginia class submarine

    The budget request contained $676.6 million for advance 
procurement funding for Virginia class submarines.
    The committee believes that the Navy's attack submarine 
force structure must be maintained at no less than 48 
submarines in order to meet potential global commitments. The 
Navy's Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels 
for fiscal year 2007 shows that the force will decrease below 
48 attack submarines between 2020 and 2033, reaching a low of 
40 attack submarines in 2028 and 2029. The committee believes 
that a reduction below 48 attack submarines puts the country in 
a position of unacceptable risk.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $1.1 billion for 
advance procurement of Virginia class submarines, an increase 
of $400.0 million for the procurement of a second Virginia 
class submarine in fiscal year 2009.

                        Other Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $5.0 
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $5.0 billion, an increase of $74.9 million, 
for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


AEGIS land-based test site modernization

    The budget request contained $75.3 million for AEGIS 
support equipment, but included no funds for modernizing AEGIS 
land-based test sites.
    The committee understands that the AEGIS land-based test 
sites are essential to the operational effectiveness of the 
AEGIS weapons system, including the development of an 
integrated missile defense system capable of providing a 
layered defense against ballistic and cruise missiles. The 
committee is aware that in order to maintain the highest 
possible level of effectiveness, the land-based test sites 
require state-of-the-art upgrades to peripheral emulators and 
switching systems used to collect and analyze combat system 
performance data. Modernization of the emulators and switches 
will ensure timely testing, certification and delivery of 
updated AEGIS baselines to the fleet.
    The committee recommends $80.3 million for AEGIS Support 
Equipment, an increase of $5.0 million to be used for 
modernizing AEGIS land-based test sites.

Amphibious ship integrated bridge system

    The budget request contained $31.0 million for other 
navigation equipment, but included no funds for the amphibious 
ship integrated bridge system.
    The committee is aware that the Navy has directed that all 
ships in the fleet will use electronic navigation/electronic 
charting by the end of fiscal year 2009. The committee believes 
that additional funding will allow for the conversion of 
amphibious ships to electronic navigation/electronic charting, 
allowing them to meet the Navy's goal. Conversion to electronic 
navigation/electronic charting will allow a reduction in bridge 
manning, saving an estimated $0.6 million per ship per year, 
more than paying for the conversion in less than three years.
    The committee recommends $35.5 million for other navigation 
equipment, an increase of $4.5 million to be used for the 
amphibious ship integrated bridge system.

AN/SPQ-9B radar

    The budget request contained $2.5 million for the AN/SPQ-9B 
radar, but included no funds for testing of the AN/SPQ-9B on 
the littoral combat ship (LCS).
    The committee is aware that the two LCS variants now under 
construction are to be delivered with tactical/fire control 
radars chosen by the prime contractors. The committee believes 
that the AN/SPQ-9B tactical/fire control radar, already in the 
Navy inventory, may provide superior self-protection against 
anti-ship sea skimming missiles than the radars being provided. 
The AN/SPQ-9B radar has been thoroughly tested by the Navy and 
a successful radar operational assessment was completed in 
September 2002. The committee is aware that an identification 
friend or foe capability, an LCS requirement, was successfully 
added in 2005. The ability to provide volume surveillance, 
another LCS requirement, is presently under development and 
scheduled for completion in the spring or summer of 2006. The 
committee believes that additional funds will be used for the 
procurement of the AN/SPQ-9B radar for the LCS program.
    The committee recommends $8.5 million for the AN/SPQ-9B 
radar, an increase of $6.0 million to be used for the testing 
of the AN/SPQ-9B on the LCS.

AN/SPS-48 radar obsolescence, availability and recovery

    The budget request contained no funds for radar support and 
no funds for the AN/SPS-48 radar obsolescence, availability and 
recovery (ROAR) program.
    The committee is aware that the AN/SPS-48 ROAR program's 
goal is to maintain and support the air defense capabilities on 
aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships and the San Antonio 
class amphibious warfare ships.
    The committee recommends $7.3 million for the AN/SPS-48 
radar obsolescence, availability and recovery program to 
accelerate the ROAR program by two years.

Boat lifts for small boats

    The budget request contained $41.1 million for standard 
boats, but included no funds for boat lifts for shore-based 
small boats.
    The committee understands that the current inventory and 
generally poor material condition of boat lifts at shore 
activities has reduced the level of boat readiness and 
increased lifecycle costs. The committee is aware that modern, 
state-of-the-art boat lifts, due to their design and 
capabilities, will expand boat service life, reduce maintenance 
costs, and permit quick and safe docking and boarding. 
Therefore, the committee recommends that modern commercial-off-
the-shelf boat lifts be purchased and installed at small boat 
shore facilities to reduce lifecycle costs and improve 
operational readiness of the shore-based small boat fleet.
    The committee recommends $42.1 million for standard boats, 
an increase of $1.0 million to be used for the procurement of 
modern boat lifts for shore activities.

Canned lube pumps for amphibious ships

    The budget request contained $172.8 million for items under 
$5.0 million, but included no funds for installing canned lube 
pumps on the Harpers Ferry and Whidbey Island class amphibious 
ships.
    The committee believes that the currently installed lube 
oil pumps have a high failure rate, leak excessively, and are 
driving up maintenance costs. Installation of the canned lube 
oil pumps will provide operating efficiency and reduce 
maintenance costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for 
items under $5.0 million, to be used for installing canned lube 
pumps on the Harpers Ferry and Whidbey Island class amphibious 
ships.

CVN propeller replacement program

    The budget request contained $172.8 million for items under 
$5.0 million, but included no funds for the CVN propeller 
replacement program.
    The committee understands that the old-design propellers on 
the Nimitz class aircraft carriers suffer from blade erosion 
caused by cavitation and the high operating tempo of recent 
years. Propeller refurbishment on the outboard and inboard 
propellers is required every three and six years, respectively. 
The committee believes that the new-design propellers will 
require refurbishment every 12 years, more closely 
corresponding to the interval of aircraft carrier drydockings. 
The committee also believes that propeller replacement will 
lead to increased ship operational availability and reduced 
disruptions to planned maintenance schedules.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for 
items under $5.0 million, to be used for the CVN propeller 
replacement program.

Laser marksmanship training systems

    The budget request contained $18.2 million for training 
support equipment, but included no funds to procure laser 
marksmanship training systems (LMTS) for the Navy Reserve.
    The LMTS is a proven laser-based marksmanship training 
system that simulates live-fire training, can be used in 
various environmental conditions and locations, as well as 
allowing sailors to train with their own primary personal 
defense weapon to engage various types of targets.
    The committee is aware this system contributes to 
individual sailor and unit readiness, improves skill retention, 
reduces unit training costs and achieves environmental cost 
avoidance associated with traditional live-fire training 
exercises. The committee understands the Navy Reserve has a 
program to field LMTS to all Navy Reserve Centers.
    The committee recommends $26.2 million for training support 
equipment, an increase of $8.0 million to accelerate the 
fielding of LMTS to all Navy Reserve Centers.

Man overboard identification system

    The budget request contained $58.6 million for command 
support equipment, but included no funds for the man overboard 
identification system.
    The committee is aware that the man overboard 
identification system provides an active means by which a Navy 
ship can be immediately alerted to a man-overboard incident and 
further allows for precise location of the individual in the 
water, thus reducing the chance of serious injury or death. 
Each sailor or marine wears a small transmitter on his life 
jacket, that, when activated upon water entry, transmits a 
signal to the ship identifying the specific sailor, the ship 
from which he fell and the global positioning system 
coordinates of the incident. A direction finder then tracks the 
location of the man-overboard during the rescue effort. Under 
the current installation plan, the Navy would provide man-
overboard transmitters only to those sailors and marines 
identified as at risk, approximately a third of all crew 
onboard. The committee believes that the Navy needs to consider 
providing a transmitter for every crewmember on the ship, not 
just those considered at risk.
    The committee recommends $67.4 million for command support 
equipment, an increase of $8.8 million to be used for the man 
overboard identification system.

Materials handling equipment

    The budget request contained $13.7 million for materials 
handling equipment (MHE), but contained no funding to procure 
an 11,000 pound rough terrain, self deployable, manually 
operated forklift system capable of operating efficiently in 
nuclear, biological, and chemical environments for the Navy 
Construction Force (NCF) Seabees.
    The committee is aware the NCF Seabees are in the process 
of recapitalizing their fleet of construction equipment and 
MHE. The committee supports this initiative and notes that the 
high operational tempo coupled with the harsh environment of 
Iraq has consequently resulted in some equipment becoming 
uneconomical to either repair or to rebuild through service 
life extension programs or recapitalization programs.
    The committee notes this system would address NCF Seabees 
lift requirements for fiscal year 2007. The committee 
recommends $23.7 million in materials handling equipment, an 
increase of $10.0 million to accelerate the procurement and 
delivery of 100 forklift material handling equipment systems 
for the NCF Seabees.

Medical support equipment

    The budget request contained $5.6 million for medical 
support equipment, but included no funding for 3,600 
lightweight and NATO-standard litters and litter load carriage 
tools; 2,500 lightweight, combat medics' bags; or 4,500 onboard 
kits for tactical vehicles, which include pelvic stabilization 
devices, ear nose and throat packs, airway tools, and 
tourniquets. The committee recommends more fully equipping 
naval expeditionary forces to enable field medical personnel in 
tactical units to stabilize and evacuate casualties more 
rapidly, efficiently, and safely.
    The committee recommends $11.8 million for medical support 
equipment, an increase of $6.2 million for combat casualty care 
equipment upgrades.

Multi-climate protective system

    The budget request contained $18.6 million for various 
aviation life support items, but included no funds for the 
multi-climate protective system (MCPS).
    The MCPS is a modular protective aircrew clothing ensemble 
that provides flame protection, thermal protection, and 
sufficient insulation while reducing the heat stress and bulk 
commonly associated with cold weather clothing systems. 
Components of the system can be used in a wide range of 
temperatures and climate conditions. The committee understands 
that funding to procure 5,532 MCPSs has been obligated thus 
far, and that the Department of the Navy's MCPS requirement is 
for 25,000 systems. The committee believes that procurement of 
the MCPS should continue.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $22.6 million for 
aviation life support, an increase of $4.0 million for 
procurement of the MCPS. Additionally, the committee strongly 
encourages the Department of the Navy to include the necessary 
funds for the MCPS in its future budget requests to meet MCPS 
requirements.

Multi-spectral threat emitter system

    The budget request contained $56.2 million for weapons 
range support equipment, but included no funds for the multi-
spectral threat emitter system (MTES).
    The MTES provides a mobile surface-to-air and air defense 
artillery electronic threat simulation for aircraft along the 
East Coast of the United States to provide for more realistic 
aircrew proficiency training. The committee notes that Congress 
appropriated $2.5 million for fiscal year 2005 and $2.1 million 
for fiscal year 2006 for the MTES, and recommends authorization 
of additional funds to complete the procurement of two MTES 
systems.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $64.2 million for 
weapons range support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million 
for procurement of two MTESs.

Serial number tracking system

    The budget request contained $12.1 million for other supply 
support equipment, but included no funds for implementation of 
the serial number tracking system.
    The serial number tracking system provides a web-based, 
cradle-to-grave total asset visibility of individual components 
through the supply, maintenance and transportation processes. 
The technology enables rapid and accurate data collection for 
information systems and permits logistics data to be used Navy-
wide for increased readiness. The committee recommends the 
implementation of the serial number tracking system application 
in the areas of shipboard medical equipment, warehouse and 
ground support equipment management at Naval and Marine Corps 
Air Stations. The committee believes that the use of modern 
commercial-off-the-shelf automatic identification and data 
collection technologies like the serial number tracking system 
for critical asset management will yield significant 
improvements in productivity and effectiveness.
    The committee recommends $15.1 million for command support 
equipment, an increase of $3.0 million to be used for 
implementation of the serial number tracking system.

Submarine communications upgrades

    The budget request contained $12.3 million for satellite 
communications systems, but included no funds for the 
Miniaturized Demand Assigned Multiple Access (mini-DAMA) 
communications set upgrades.
    The committee understands that the mini-DAMA communications 
set provides communications links necessary for command and 
control of battlegroups, as well as for control, targeting and 
battle damage assessment for deployed tomahawk weapons. The 
committee is aware that due to program delays in the Joint 
Tactical Radio System, it is necessary to perform mini-DAMA 
upgrades in the submarine fleet to avoid degradation of combat 
missions.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.1 million to be 
used for mini-DAMA communications set upgrades in the submarine 
fleet.

Submarine non-tactical application delivery interface system shore 
        interface

    The budget request contained $24.8 million for submarine 
training device mods, including $2.9 million for the submarine 
non-tactical application delivery interface system (SNADIS) 
shore interface.
    The committee recommends authorizing additional funds to 
allow the Navy to accelerate the development and integration of 
the shore command system with the existing deployed ship based 
SNADIS. When these two systems are fully integrated and sharing 
information, both the ship's commanding officer and shore 
commander will have the information available to assess and 
evaluate the readiness of the submarine force.
    The committee recommends $27.8 million for submarine 
training device mods, an increase of $3.0 million to be used 
for the SNADIS shore interface.

Ultrasonic maintenance tools

    The budget request contained $172.8 million for items less 
than $5.0 million, but included no funds for ultrasonic 
maintenance tools.
    The committee understands that ultrasonic maintenance tools 
have the potential to significantly reduce ship maintenance 
man-hours by eliminating several time consuming maintenance 
procedures currently used to locate and identify compartment 
integrity breeches, fluid system leaks, bearing and gear 
anomalies and clogged engine fuel injectors. The committee 
believes significant cost-savings may be attained with 
maintenance reducing technology.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for 
the procurement of ultrasonic maintenance tools.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $1.3 
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1.2 billion, a decrease of $49.7 million, for 
fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Marine Corps request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Envelope protective covers for marine expeditionary unit weapon systems 
        and platforms

    The budget request contained $31.8 million for fire support 
systems, but included no funds to procure envelope protective 
covers for Marine Corps Expeditionary Units' (MEUs) weapon 
systems and platforms.
    The committee understands the Navy currently employs 
envelope protective covers for equipment platforms and weapon 
systems. The committee notes that widespread use of envelope 
protective covers by the Navy is generating higher equipment 
readiness ratings for protected naval weapon systems and 
platforms, as well as lower maintenance requirements, reduced 
manpower requirements, and higher return on equipment 
investments. The committee encourages the Marine Corps to field 
similar envelope protective covers to seven MEUs to cover such 
equipment platforms as the M777 lightweight 155mm howitzers and 
M198 155mm howitzers, as well as to capitalize on the economic 
and performance benefits provided by these protective covers.
    The committee recommends $34.8 million in fire support 
systems, an increase of $3.0 million to procure envelope 
protective equipment covers for seven MEUs.

Intelligent surveillance systems

    The budget request contained $13.8 million for training 
devices, but contained no funding for a modular intelligent 
surveillance training system.
    The committee understands a modular intelligent 
surveillance system would provide Marine Corps trainers with 
improved situational awareness of military personnel conducting 
urban training exercises, and would provide immediate feedback 
to the training unit in after action review format. Further, 
the committee is aware this system would allow trainers to 
observe in real-time a training event either from a ``blue'' or 
``opposing'' force perspective; a capability not currently 
employed by existing training systems.
    The committee recommends $18.8 million for training 
devices, an increase of $5.0 million to procure modular 
intelligent surveillance training systems.

Laser perimeter awareness system

    The budget request contained $5.2 million for physical 
security equipment, but included no funds to procure laser 
perimeter awareness systems (LPAS).
    The LPAS is an all-weather surveillance sensor system that 
would detect the presence and track the motion of intruders, 
locating them in range, bearing, and elevation with respect to 
the position of the sensor.
    The committee understands Marine Corps regulations 
governing the security of arms, ammunition, and explosives, as 
well as aviation assets, mandate constant surveillance and 
restricted access to these assets. The committee is aware that 
Marine Corps installations are currently equipped with base-
wide electronic security systems that are outdated and require 
extensive modernization. The committee notes the LPAS would 
provide critical enhancements to existing security and force 
protection technology to meet current Marine Corps security 
requirements outlined in the Marine Corps's Flightline Security 
Enhancement Program (FSEP), as well as increase the 
effectiveness of available security manpower.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $14.7 million for 
physical security equipment, an increase of $9.5 million to 
procure three LPAS and associated equipment, as well as to 
address a Commandant of the Marine Corps unfunded requirement.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $11.5 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $13.0 billion, an increase of $1.6 
billion, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are 
discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


B-1B molecular sieve oxygen generation system

    The budget request contained $53.1 million for B-1B 
aircraft modifications, but included no funds for the molecular 
sieve oxygen generation system (MSOGS) reliability improvement 
program.
    The committee understands the MSOGS is the B-1B oxygen 
generation system which consists of a concentrator, water 
separator, and a back-up oxygen system that provides the 
aircrew with an unlimited source of oxygen for breathing during 
flight. The committee notes that while operating in forward 
basing locations containing a high humidity level, the rate of 
repair for the MSOGS has doubled causing negative impacts to 
operationally available aircraft. The committee is aware that 
the original equipment manufacturer has identified an improved, 
high-efficiency water separator that would enhance the 
reliability of the MSOGS, increase operational availability of 
the aircraft, and eliminate the need for a depot level repair.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $57.6 million, an 
increase of $4.5 million for the MSOGS reliability improvement 
program.

B-2 radar modification program

    The budget request contained $191.3 million for B-2 
modernization, including $160.7 million for the B-2 radar 
modification program (RMP).
    The committee understands that in October 2000, the 
Department of Commerce notified the Department of Defense that 
the B-2 must vacate its current operating frequency before a 
classified near-term date (NTD) and relocate to a frequency 
band where the U.S. Government is the primary user. The 
committee understands that this raised a significant challenge 
for the Air Force due to budget cycle timing. The committee 
notes the Air Force started the program in fiscal year 2003 to 
replace the B-2 radar system by the NTD and modeled the program 
around a traditional acquisition structure.
    The committee notes the B-2 RMP plans to make a low-rate 
production decision in February 2007, to procure four radar 
modification units in fiscal year 2007. However, the committee 
understands that radar flight testing will not have progressed 
to the point that the first of two planned radar software 
blocks is fully tested and certified until the beginning of 
fiscal year 2008. Although flight testing will be underway, 
only 23 percent of the flight testing is expected to be 
completed by the beginning of fiscal year 2007. The committee 
recognizes that producing RMP units before ensuring that the 
design is mature and functions in its intended environment can 
increase the likelihood of design changes that lead to cost 
growth, schedule delays, and performance problems.
    Although the committee realizes the challenges presented to 
the Air Force to correct the radar frequency issue promptly, 
the committee strongly discourages future programs from this 
methodology of proceeding into low-rate production before 
program components have been fully tested and certified.

B-52 force structure

    The budget request included a proposal to retire 18 B-52 
aircraft in fiscal year 2007, and 20 B-52 aircraft in fiscal 
year 2008.
    The committee understands that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review directed the Air Force to reduce the B-52 force to 56 
aircraft and use the savings to fully modernize the remaining 
B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s to support global strike operations. 
However, the committee understands that the estimated $680.0 
million savings garnered from the proposed B-52 retirement in 
the remaining Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) has not been 
reinvested into modernizing the current bomber force, but has 
instead been applied towards Air Force transformational 
activities. The committee also understands that the current B-
52 combat coded force structure is insufficient to meet 
combatant commander requirements for conventional long-range 
strike, if the need should arise to conduct simultaneous 
operations in two major regional conflicts.
    Additionally, the committee is concerned that the decision 
to retire 38 B-52 aircraft is primarily based on the nuclear 
warfighting requirements of the Strategic Integrated Operations 
Plan, and did not consider the role of the B-52 in meeting 
combatant commander's conventional long-range strike 
requirements. The committee disagrees with the decision to 
reduce the B-52 force structure given that the Air Force has 
not begun the planned analysis of alternatives to determine 
what conventional long-range strike capabilities and platforms 
will be needed to meet future requirements.
    The committee is deeply concerned that retirement of any B-
52 aircraft prior to a replacement long-range strike aircraft 
reaching initial operational capability status is premature. 
Further, the committee strongly opposes a strategy to reduce 
capability in present day conventional long-range strike 
capability in order to provide funding for a replacement 
capability that is not projected to achieve initial operational 
capability until well into the future.
    Therefore, the committee included a provision (section 131) 
in this Act that would prohibit the Air Force from retiring any 
B-52 aircraft, except for the one B-52 aircraft no longer in 
use by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 
testing. Additionally, this section would require the Air Force 
to maintain a minimum B-52 force structure of 44 combat coded 
aircraft until the year 2018, or until a long-range strike 
replacement aircraft with equal or greater capability than the 
B-52H model has attained initial operational capability status.

C-130 modifications

    The budget request contained $217.7 million for C-130 
modifications, but included no funds for the C-130 scathe view 
communication systems improvement, or for procurement of the 
AN/APN-241 radar for the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC).
    The C-130 scathe view system provides a near-real-time 
imaging capability to support humanitarian relief and non-
combatant evacuation operations. The committee understands that 
the C-130 scathe view system currently has a short-range, line-
of-sight capability to transmit full motion video, but this 
capability could be extended to longer ranges with a tactical 
common data link (TCDL) upgrade. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $1.8 million for procurement of a 
TCDL upgrade to the C-130 scathe view system.
    The AN/APN-241 is a weather and navigation radar that 
replaces the 1950's-era AN/APN-59 radar currently installed on 
the AFRC's C-130 aircraft fleet. The committee understands that 
the AN/APN-241 radar has significantly improved performance 
capabilities and a much lower mean-time-between-failure rate. 
The committee also understands that procurement and 
installation of the AN/APN-241 radar is the second highest C-
130 unfunded priority for the AFRC. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.5 million to procure AN/APN-241 
radars for the AFRC's C-130 fleet.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.8 
million for the C-130 scathe view communication systems 
improvement and an increase of $5.5 million for the AN/APN-241 
radar for the AFRC.

C-5 modernization programs

    The budget request contained $223.1 million for C-5 
modernization programs, including $50.4 million for the C-5 
avionics modernization program (AMP), $66.7 million for 
advanced procurement of three reliability and re-engining 
program (RERP) kits, and $28.9 million for aircraft defensive 
systems.
    The committee understands that the average C-5 aircraft has 
approximately 70 percent of its forecasted structural life 
remaining and supports the initiatives to modernize the C-5 
fleet. The committee notes that the AMP and the RERP are 
expected to increase the C-5 wartime operational availability 
from a current average of 60 percent, to at least 75 percent. 
Further, the committee understands that the AMP and the RERP 
have the potential to reduce the total ownership cost of the C-
5 aircraft fleet by $24.0 billion (fiscal year 2005 dollars) 
over the remaining service life of the fleet, and that a return 
on investment of approximately $13.0 billion (fiscal year 2005 
dollars) could be realized by the year 2028.
    The committee understands that C-5A aircraft are prohibited 
from directly delivering cargo into airfields assessed as 
having a man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) threat. 
Further, the committee understands that the C-5A aircraft must 
land at a base outside of these MANPADS threat areas and 
transfer its cargo onto another aircraft installed with an 
operational missile warning and countermeasure system, causing 
an increased delay in getting supplies and equipment to the 
warfighter.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $289.8 million, an 
increase of $32.0 million for procurement of 8 additional AMP 
kits; an increase of $12.5 million for procurement of 10, AN/
AAR-47 and AN/ALE-47 missile warning and countermeasure 
dispensing systems; and an increase of $22.2 million for 
advanced procurement of 1 additional RERP kit.

C-9 hush kits

    The committee understands that funds appropriated in fiscal 
year 2005 for Department of the Air Force C-9 hush kits remain 
unobligated due to the near-term retirement of these aircraft 
from the inventory. Hush kits are required to allow the ground 
maintenance of C-9 engines to meet various locality noise 
standards for engine ground-run maintenance. The committee also 
understands that the Department of the Navy plans to maintain 
its C-9 aircraft for at least the next 10 years, and therefore 
encourages the Department of Defense to transfer the funding 
provided for Department of the Air Force C-9 hush kits to the 
Department of the Navy, ensuring that these funds will be 
executed to best support the needs of the Department of 
Defense.

F-22

    The budget request contained $1.5 billion for the F-22 
aircraft procurement program, but included insufficient funds 
to procure 20 F-22 aircraft in fiscal year 2007. The F-22 is a 
multi-mission fighter aircraft that combines a low-observable 
radar signature with an ability to cruise atsupersonic speeds 
without the use of thrust augmentation, and performs air dominance, 
homeland and cruise missile defense, and air-to-ground attack missions. 
The F-22 achieved its initial operational capability in the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2006.
    The budget request included an F-22 multiyear acquisition 
strategy to procure 3 lots, numbered as lots 7 through 9, each 
consisting of 20 aircraft, between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. 
As part of this strategy, the budget request included a plan to 
incrementally fund each of these three lots over a three year 
period through budgeting for advance procurement two years 
prior to full funding, subassembly activities to be budgeted 
one year prior to full funding, and final assembly to be 
budgeted in the third year. The committee understands that the 
Department of Defense's F-22 multiyear acquisition strategy is 
inconsistent with the full-funding policy which would allow for 
advance procurement of long-lead items to protect a delivery 
schedule, and require a budget for procurement of complete and 
useable end items in a fiscal year.
    The committee considers the F-22 incremental funding 
acquisition strategy to be wholly unacceptable. The committee 
believes that the full-funding policy should apply to the F-22 
aircraft procurement program, and any other Department of 
Defense aircraft procurement program contemplated in the 
foreseeable future. The committee further believes that 
incremental funding of aircraft procurement programs presents 
an unacceptable budgeting risk that, due to unforeseen 
circumstances, future funding increments may not be authorized 
and appropriated to provide the required funding increments 
which would result in partially completed end items that are of 
no military value to the Department of Defense or to 
warfighting commands.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $2.9 billion to fully 
fund and procure 20 F-22 aircraft in fiscal year 2007, an 
increase of $1.4 billion. The committee very strongly urges the 
Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force to 
restructure its future F-22 procurement budget plans to comply 
with the full-funding policy.

F-35

    The budget request contained $245.0 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy for F-35 advance procurement to procure the 
long-lead items necessary to build eight short take-off and 
vertical land (STOVL) Navy and Marine Corps variants, which 
would be fully funded in fiscal year 2008. The budget request 
also contained $118.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air 
Force for F-35 advance procurement to procure the long-lead 
items necessary to build eight conventional take-off and 
landing (CTOL) Air Force variants, which would also be fully 
funded in fiscal year 2008. Additionally, the budget request 
contained $869.7 million for the first five CTOL Air Force F-35 
variants.
    The F-35 program, also known as the joint strike fighter 
(JSF) program, is developing a family of three strike fighter 
aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. About 70 
percent of the parts for all three fighter variants will be 
common. The Air Force CTOL variant will replace the F-16 and A-
10 fleets; the Navy variant, or aircraft carrier version (CV), 
will complement the F/A-18E/F; and the Marine Corps variant, or 
short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) version, will replace 
the AV-8B and the F/A-18C/D fleets.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the 
committee recommended that the F-35 program not begin its low-
rate initial procurement program in fiscal year 2007 because 
testing to determine whether or not the redesigned, lower-
weight F-35 production configuration would meet mission 
requirements would not be known until after the first flights 
of the lower-weight STOVL and CTOL test aircraft. The committee 
notes that the first flight of the higher-weight CTOL aircraft 
has been delayed by three months, resulting in corresponding 
delays in the first flights of the lower-weight STOVL and CTOL 
test aircraft, now planned for the second and fourth quarters 
of fiscal year 2008, respectively.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
hearing on March 16, 2006, at which the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) witness testified, that, ``the JSF 
program remains committed to a business case that invests 
heavily in production before testing has demonstrated an 
acceptable level of performance of the aircraft,'' and that the 
``program expects to begin low-rate initial procurement in 2007 
with less than one percent of the flight test program completed 
and no production representative prototypes built for the three 
JSF variants.'' As a result, the committee remains very 
concerned that concurrent development and production of the F-
35 is likely to result in further cost increases and schedule 
delays. The committee notes that the GAO reports that only 
three percent of the flight test program will be complete in 
fiscal year 2008, and believes that JSF procurement for fiscal 
year 2008 should also remain at the fiscal year 2007 
procurement quantity of five aircraft.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $92.0 million in 
Aircraft Procurement, Navy for the advance procurement of long-
lead components for three STOVL F-35 aircraft in fiscal year 
2008, a decrease of $153.0 million. The committee also 
recommends $30.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 
for the advance procurement of long-lead components for two 
CTOL F-35 aircraft in fiscal year 2008, a decrease of $88.0 
million.

KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program

    The budget request contained $36.1 million for advanced 
procurement for the KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft 
recapitalization program (KC-X). The budget request included a 
proposal to retire 78 KC-135E aircraft.
    The committee fully supports recapitalization of the KC-135 
aerial refueling fleet. The committee notes that a system 
development and design contract would likely not be awarded 
until the end of fiscal year 2007, in accordance with the 
estimated acquisition schedule of the Air Force. The committee 
believes it is premature to authorize advanced procurement 
funding at such an early stage of the KC-X program.
    The committee notes that the Air Force has been restricted 
since fiscal year 2004 from retiring KC-135E aircraft. However, 
the committee believes that it is premature to retire 78 KC-
135E aircraft in fiscal year 2007 based on the tanker 
recapitalization program still being in its early stages of 
execution. The committee recognizes that 29 of the requested 78 
KC-135E aircraft selected for retirement have been grounded 
from flight since fiscal year 2004.
    Therefore, the committee included a provision (section 135) 
in this Act that would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to 
retire the 29 KC-135E grounded aircraft, and require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to maintain all retired KC-135Es, 
beginning in fiscal year 2007, in a condition that would allow 
recall to future service in the Air Force reserve, guard, or 
active forces aerial refueling force structure. The committee 
will consider additional KC-135E retirements based on the 
future progress of the KC-X program. Lastly, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $36.1 million for advanced procurement 
for the KC-X program.

P5 combat training systems

    The budget request contained $474.9 million for other 
production charges, including $4.9 million for the P5 combat 
training system (P5CTS).
    The P5CTS is an airborne instrumentation subsystem pod used 
by fighter and attack aircraft which provides the capability to 
conduct air-to-air, air-to-surface, and electronic warfare 
combat training while providing real-time aircraft monitoring 
and recording events for post- mission debrief and analysis. 
The committee notes that the P5CTS budget for fiscal year 2006 
was $13.9 million and had been planned for $14.1 million in 
fiscal year 2007, but understands that this amount was 
decreased to $4.9 million because the Department of the Air 
Force reprogrammed $9.2 million for other purposes. As a 
result, the committee further understands that this decrease 
will delay P5CTS fielding at various Air Force Bases (AFB), 
including Shaw AFB where the current P5CTS fielding plan will 
meet only half of its requirement for 48 P5CTSs.
    To address this shortfall, the committee recommends $478.1 
million for other production charges, an increase of $3.2 
million to procure 24 additional P5CTSs.

Strategic airlift force structure

    The budget request contained $2.6 billion for procurement 
of 12 C-17s, including $389.6 million for shutdown costs of the 
production line.
    The Commander, U.S. Transportation Command and the 
Commander, Air Mobility Command, both testified before the 
House Committee on Armed Services March 2, 2006, that no more 
than 20 C-17s, in addition to the 180 C-17s currently in the 
Department of Defense's program of record, are needed to meet 
both the inter-theater and intra-theater airlift requirements, 
and provide a recapitalization solution for older C-17s being 
used at a higher than planned utilization rate. Further, the 
Commanders testified that the range of 292 to 383 strategic 
airlift aircraft set forth in the Mobility Capability Study 
(MCS), should not be considered a strict composition of a 
specific type of aircraft, but should instead be considered a 
capacity requirement based on an acceptable level of risk. 
Lastly, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force identified seven 
additional C-17s as the number one request on the Air Force's 
unfunded priority list.
    The committee is concerned that the decision by the 
Department to maintain a strategic airlift force structure of 
292 aircraft is not based on meeting future airlift 
requirements, but based on fiscal constraints. Further, the 
committee is concerned about the acceptable level of risk 
provided with a strategic airlift force structure of 292 
aircraft with critical uncertainties such as defining future 
Army modularity and intra-theater airlift requirements, the 
outcome of the C-5 modernization program, the C-130 wing-box 
repair strategy, and the viability of the Civil Reserve Airlift 
Fleet to augment future airlift requirements. The committee is 
concerned that the MCS scenarios used for the modeled year were 
not intended to fully stress the defense transportation system 
and is deeply concerned by the shortsightedness of the MCS to 
project capabilities required past the year 2012. The committee 
supports the initiative to modernize the C-5 fleet and supports 
the evaluation of a C-5A aircraft in the Reliability 
Enhancement and Re- enginging Program (RERP) configuration. 
Lastly, the committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force when 
determining the composition of the future strategic airlift 
fleet, to thoroughly examine the benefits of including both the 
C-5 and C-17 platforms.
    Therefore, the committee included a provision (section 132) 
in this Act that would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to maintain a minimum strategic airlift aircraft force 
structure of 299 aircraft beginning in fiscal year 2009. 
Additionally, the provision would repeal section 132 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public 
Law 108-136), to allow the Air Force flexibility in managing 
its strategic airlift fleet composition. Lastly, the committee 
recommends $2.9 billion, an increase of $299.8 million for 
procurement of 3 additional C-17s. The committee strongly 
encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to apply the $389.6 
million of shutdown costs towards the procurement of these 3 
additional C-17s.

T-38 ejection seat upgrade program

    The T-38 ejection seat upgrade program (ESUP) upgrades the 
T-38 ejection seat system with an inter-seat sequencing system 
that would accommodate a larger population of pilot heights and 
weights.
    The committee notes that the Air Force maintains an 
inventory of 509 T-38 aircraft, but only 243 aircraft are 
planned for the ESUP. The committee strongly encourages the Air 
Force to budget for the ESUP for the entire T-38 fleet.

                   Ammunition Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $1.1 
billion for Ammunition Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $1.1 billion, an increase of $4.0 
million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are 
discussed following the table.


                        Item of Special Interest


Insensitive munitions upgrade

    The budget request contained $235.5 million for general 
purpose bombs of various types and weights. The committee notes 
that the Department of the Air Force indicates that 40 percent 
of the MK-84 2,000-pound general purpose (GP) bombs requested 
for fiscal year 2007 would be loaded, assembled and packed with 
a new, more expensive explosive fill, known as MNX-795, instead 
of trinitroluene (TNT), which are classified as insensitive 
munitions (IMs).
    IMs are those providing a higher degree of safety in the 
handling, manufacturing, storage, and use because they are more 
insensitive to unplanned stimuli. The committee understands 
that IMs will provide substantial improvements in decreasing 
unplanned high-order detonations due to heat induced by fire, 
bullet impact, fragment impact, and adjacent detonations; and 
the committee believes that the percentage of IMs procured for 
fiscal year 2007 should be expanded.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $239.5 million for 
general purpose bombs, an increase of $4.0 million to procure 
additional IMs.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $4.2 
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $4.2 billion, a decrease of $32.7 
million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are 
discussed following the table.


                      Other Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $15.4 
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $15.4 billion, an increase of $20.6 
million, for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are 
discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Cheyenne Mountain complex

    The budget request contained $19.3 million for procurement 
of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, including $14.9 million for 
tactical warning/attack assessment systems.
    The committee believes that the modernization and 
integration of the command and control systems at Cheyenne 
Mountain, Colorado is critical to adequately support the North 
American Aerospace Defense Command, U.S. Northern Command and 
U.S. Strategic Command. However, the committee is aware of 
management deficiencies in the Commander's integrated command 
and control system (CCIC2S) program, which are resulting in a 
significant cost overrun and an undefined delivery schedule. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
maintain essential operation and maintenance activities, and 
limit future investment to only the developmental activities 
deemed essential to national security needs.
    The committee recommends $4.4 million for procurement of 
the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, a decrease of $14.9 million.

Combat survivor radios

    The budget request contained a total of $69.2 million for 
combat survivor evader locator (CSEL) radios for the 
Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
    The CSEL radio provides combat forces with secure, 
encrypted, low probability of exploitation, two-way, over the 
horizon, near real-time data-burst communications with precise 
location and non-secure, unencrypted line-of-site voice and 
beacon capability to support survival evasion, and personnel 
recovery operations. In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006, the committee expressed its belief that procurement 
funds should be made available for either the CSEL, or an 
alternate survival radio, to meet immediate user requirements 
since the CSEL radio program was late in delivering radios to 
meet warfighter needs. The committee understands that the 
Department of Defense requires over 40,000 survival radios, 
that the CSEL radio program has been able to meet less than a 
third of those requirements thus far, and that combatant 
commanders still have an urgent need for survival radios.
    Therefore, the committee directs that procurement funds 
requested for CSEL radios be made available to procure either 
CSEL radios or alternate survival radio systems that can 
address the urgent survival radio need.

Combat training ranges

    The budget request contained $35.4 million for combat 
training ranges, but included no funds for the unmanned threat 
emitter (UMTE) modernization program.
    The UMTE modernization program provides updated electronic 
threat simulations for combat aircrew training. The committee 
understands that the UMTEs located at the Eielson Air Combat 
Training Range have been modernized to more accurately 
replicate current electronic threat systems and that this 
upgrade has also reduced manpower, operations and support 
costs. The committee further understands that five UMTEs 
located at the Nellis Test and Training Range require the UMTE 
modernization, and believes that these systems should be 
upgraded.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $47.4 million for 
combat training ranges, an increase of $12.0 million for the 
UMTE modernization program.

Enterprise data collection solution

    The budget request contained $14.6 million for mechanized 
material handing equipment, but included no funding for the 
Enterprise Data Collection Solution (EDCS). The committee 
understands that the EDCS assembles data from various Air Force 
logistics systems across the enterprise, thus eliminating the 
need to manually enter data for each transaction. This system 
will not only save time and money, but it will reduce errors 
and speed the flow of logistics.
    The committee recommends $18.6 million for mechanized 
material handling equipment, an increase of $4.0 million for 
the procurement of common EDCS equipment for four key Air Force 
installations.

Force protection near real time surveillance

    The budget request contained $41.4 million for various 
types of Air Force physical security systems, but included no 
funds for the force protection surveillance system (FPSS).
    The FPSS consists of a tactical communications intercept 
system, a near real-time video surveillance system, and a 
tactical internet communications system for dissemination of 
surveillance information. The committee notes that Congress 
appropriated an increase of $1.0 million for fiscal year 2006, 
and believes that additional FPSSs should be acquired.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $44.4 million for Air 
Force physical security systems, an increase of $3.0 million 
for the acquisition, deployment and integration of the FPSS 
into mission planning systems and surveillance platforms.

High frequency ground control station antennas

    The budget request contained $7.7 million for radio 
equipment, including $1.3 million for high frequency ground 
control station (HFGCS) antennas.
    The HFGCS is a strategic and tactical command and control 
network that provides beyond line-of-sight interoperable voice 
and data for aircrews. The HFGCS serves as the primary command 
and control resource for the Air Mobility Command's (AMC) cargo 
and tanker aircraft. The committee understands that most of 
AMC's HFGCS antenna inventory is nearing or past its design 
life and that numerous high frequency antenna are inoperative. 
The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff included 
20 additional HFGCS antennas among his unfunded priorities for 
fiscal year 2007.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $12.7 million for 
radio equipment, an increase of $5.0 million for the 
procurement of 20 HFGCS antennas.

Mobile approach control system

    The budget request contained $6.2 million for air traffic 
control and landing systems, but included no funds to procure a 
mobile approach control system (MACS).
    The MACS provides military forces with next-generation 
mobile air traffic control services, day and night, in all 
weather conditions, to military and civilian aircraft, and will 
replace the aging TPN-19 and MPN-14K landing control centers 
employed by the Department of the Air Force combat 
communications squadrons and Air National Guard (ANG) air 
trafficcontrol squadrons. The committee understands that of 10 
ANG air traffic control squadrons, only 4 have the MACS, and believes 
that its procurement for the ANG should continue.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $23.5 million for 
air traffic control and landing systems, an increase of $17.3 
million for one MACS for the ANG.

Self-deploying infra-red streamer

    The budget request contained no funds for personal safety 
and rescue equipment items less than $2.0 million, or for the 
self-deploying infra-red streamer (SDIRS) system.
    The SDIRS system is an 11-inch by 40 foot orange rescue 
streamer distress signal which includes a water-activated light 
system. The SDIRS is used in ejection seat-equipped aircraft 
and is automatically deployed in the event of a water landing. 
The committee believes that this system assists in more rapidly 
locating and rescuing downed crew members and that it should be 
installed on all Department of the Air Force ejection seat-
equipped aircraft.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $4.0 million for 
personal safety and rescue equipment items less than $2.0 
million, an increase of $4.0 million for procurement and 
installation of 5500 SDIRS systems.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2007 contained $2.9 
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends 
authorization of $2.9 billion, a decrease of $5.0 million, for 
fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced SEAL Delivery System

    The committee acknowledges the Department of Defense's 
recent decision to cancel the Advanced SEAL Delivery System 
(ASDS) program due to its performance and reliability to date. 
The committee has expressed its continued concern regarding 
technical issues, contractor performance, and cost growths 
throughout the life of the program and will continue to closely 
monitor the development and fielding of this capability. 
Additionally, due to the troubled history surrounding the 
development of ASDS, the committee wants to ensure that the 
ASDS improvement program (AIP) and accompanying ASDS concept 
study consider the most current technologies for incorporation 
into future ASDS capabilities and designs.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct an ASDS design competition during fiscal year 2007 
and authorizes an additional $10.0 million in research and 
development funding specifically for this competition. Design 
competition in fiscal year 2007 will ensure that ASDS program 
decisions made upon completion of the critical systems review 
portion of the AIP and of phase three of the ASDS concept study 
take into account current technologies and designs available 
through related industry research and development as well as 
the lessons learned from the critical systems review and ASDS 
concept study. Finally, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by June 1, 2007, on the 
results of the AIP's critical systems review and on the status 
of an overall ASDS program decision.

Chemical and biological defense procurement

    Section 1703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) establishes the Chemical 
and Biological Defense Program. The Joint Program Executive 
Office for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO(CBD)) is now 
the joint services single focal point for advanced research and 
development, acquisition, fielding, and lifecycle support of 
chemical and biological defense equipment. Nevertheless, the 
military services possess legacy chemical and biological 
defense equipment, procured prior to the establishment of the 
JPEO(CBD). The committee directs the Assistant to the Secretary 
of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense 
Programs, acting through the JPEO(CBD), in coordination with 
the military services, to develop a modernization plan for 
legacy nuclear, biological, and chemical contamination 
avoidance; biological defense; collective protection; 
individual protection; and decontamination systems and to also 
develop service sustainment plans for systems initially fielded 
by the JPEO(CBD).

Special operations forces operational enhancements

    The budget request contained $434.5 million for special 
operations forces (SOF) operational enhancements, but included 
no funds for secure wireless local area network (LAN) 
cryptographic devices, and only $2.5 million for craft 
modifications.
    The committee recognizes that U.S. Special Operations 
Command (USSOCOM) has the need to access and transmit 
classified data over a wireless LAN. Funding would allow 
USSOCOM to replace the legacy SECNET 11 wireless card with the 
SECNET 54 card. The committee notes that this item is on the 
unfunded priority list of the Commander, USSOCOM to provide 
required secure wireless capability.
    The committee recognizes that naval special warfare relies 
on maritime combatant craft platforms to conduct target 
interdiction and insertion/extraction of combatant forces. 
Additional funds for craft modifications would fully equip the 
entire operational inventory with key technological upgrades. 
The committee notes that this item is on the unfunded priority 
list of the Commander, USSOCOM to accelerate technology 
insertion into this platform.
    The committee recommends $444.5 million for SOF operational 
enhancements, an increase of $1.8 million for the procurement 
of secure wireless LAN cryptographic devices, and an increase 
of $8.2 million for craft modifications.

Unmanned aerial systems to counter improvised explosive devices

    The committee is aware of numerous systems being offered by 
non-traditional defense companies seeking to support the global 
war on terrorism by providing already developed capabilities to 
counter the improvised explosive device threat.
    The committee recommends that the Department of Defense 
fully review and consider all viable sensor technologies and 
currently available conventional and vertical take-off and 
landing unmanned aerial vehicles to address the improvised 
explosive device threat.

U.S. Special Operations Command aviation modernization

    The committee recognizes that U.S. Special Operations 
Command (USSOCOM) relies primarily on the modification of C-130 
aircraft to special operations-capable aircraft to provide its 
fixed wing special operations mission capability. USSOCOM has 
maintained its AC-130 and MC-130 fleet through several upgrade 
programs, to sustain USSOCOM's mission capability until a 
future fleet of special operations aircraft could be developed 
and fielded. Because of the increased operating hours placed on 
USSOCOM's fleet from on-going combat operations, USSOCOM will 
be unable to maintain its fixed wing capability until a future 
fleet can be fielded. The committee further understands that 
the C-130J model aircraft offers USSOCOM a platform that can be 
recapitalized and modified into tanker, infiltration/
exfiltration, and gunship platforms.
    Further, the committee recognizes that USSOCOM is expanding 
its fixed wing fleet with the CV-22 aircraft. The current CV-22 
program projects an initial operating capability of 10 aircraft 
by fiscal year 2009 and a full operational capability of 50 
aircraft by fiscal year 2017.
    The committee believes that accelerated procurement both of 
the C-130J for conversion into special operations capable 
aircraft and of the CV-22 would allow USSOCOM to maintain its 
special operations mission capability that is currently 
stretched due to USSOCOM's high operational tempo. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
by April 1, 2007, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services on the feasibility of 
accelerated procurement of the CV-22 and the C-130J aircraft.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


           Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations

    These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 
2007 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs


   Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Family of Medium 
                           Tactical Vehicles

    This section would grant authority to the Secretary of the 
Army in fiscal year 2008 to enter into a 3-year multiyear 
procurement (MYP) contract for the family of medium tactical 
vehicles (FMTV) for fiscal years 2008-2010. This section would 
require that should the Secretary of the Army exercise his MYP 
authority for FMTVs, the contract would follow all federal 
procurement regulations including full and open competition. 
Finally, this section would also require that FMTVs procured 
under this MYP contract to incorporate improvements from 
lessons learned from operations involving the global war on 
terrorism, as well as existing FMTV product improvement 
programs in the areas of force protection, survivability, 
reliability, network communications, situational awareness and 
safety.
    The committee recognizes the current 5-year MYP contract 
for FMTV A1R vehicles ends with fiscal year 2007 funding and 
calendar year 2008 deliveries. The committee notes the Army's 
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV) Modernization Strategy Report to 
Congress stated, ``As a risk mitigator, use of contract options 
will be sought to permit extension of current production models 
to avoid any breaks in vehicle supply.'' The committee is 
concerned that single year contract awards would be extremely 
costly for the Army given the large quantity requirements that 
continue to exist for FMTVs within the modular force construct 
as well as the quantity requirements that should result from 
the Army ``resetting the force'' through repair, 
recapitalization and replacement of vehicles across the Future 
Years Defense Program. The committee expects the Army to 
modernize and recapitalize its TWV fleet with a more capable 
vehicle or platform that would at the minimum incorporate 
lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
    The committee is aware approximately 31,000 FMTVs have been 
produced under three successive multiyear contracts that have 
saved approximately 6-10 percent versus single year 
procurements. Furthermore, the committee notes that a MYP 
contract would potentially assure favorable, cost effective 
prices for a more advanced configuration FMTV that would 
incorporate lessons learned from OIF, as well as ensure 
stability in the industrial base.
    The committee is aware the Army is conducting an advanced 
concept technology demonstration (ACTD) for a future tactical 
truck system as part of its TWV Modernization Strategy. The 
committee notes an essential component of this ACTD is the 
maneuver sustainment vehicle (MSV). The committee also notes 
this vehicle would potentially replace the FMTV and other heavy 
TWVs, as well as understands the MSV would help shape 
requirements for the next medium to heavy TWV. The committee 
notes no formal production schedule exists for the MSV other 
than the Army would conduct a system demonstration in late 
calendar year 2006. The committee recognizes that previous 
comparable TWV schedules would indicate a notional schedule for 
an MSV production beginning in the 2011 timeframe.

Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for MH-60R Helicopters and 
                           Mission Equipment

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army, 
acting as the executive agent for the Department of the Navy, 
to enter into a five-year, multiyear procurement contract for 
144 MH-60R helicopters and associated mission equipment 
beginning with the fiscal year 2007 program year. Further, the 
multiyear procurement contract authority would be executed in 
accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.

 Section 113--Funding Profile for Modular Force Initiative of the Army

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
include the M1A2 Abrams SEP tank and Bradley A3 fighting 
vehicles within the Army's modularity funding profile beginning 
with the 2008 budget submission, in accordance with the March 
2006 Army report to Congress, ``The Army Modular Initiative.''

             Section 114--Bridge to Future Networks Program

    This section would limit the amounts authorized to be 
appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to the 
authorization of appropriations for the bridge to future 
networks program, to not more than 70 percent until the 
Secretary of the Army submits a report to the congressional 
defense committees. The report would include an analysis of how 
the Joint Network Node (JNN) and the Warfighter Information 
Network-Tactical (WIN-T) will be integrated and whether or not 
there are opportunities to leverage JNN technologies and 
equipment as part of the WIN-T development effort. The report 
would also describe the extent to which JNN and WIN-T 
components would be used together as elements of a single 
tactical network and the Army's strategy for completing the 
systems engineering necessary to ensure the end-to-end 
interoperability of this network.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs


             Section 121--Attack Submarine Force Structure

    This section would amend section 5062 of title 10, United 
States Code, mandating the Secretary of Defense maintain a 
minimum force structure of 48 operational attack submarines.

   Section 122--Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for CVN-21 Class of 
                           Aircraft Carriers

    This section would limit the total amount to be obligated 
or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other 
procurement account, for the detail design, non-recurring 
engineering and actual construction of the lead ship of the 
CVN-21 class aircraft carrier program to $10.5 billion. This 
section would further limit the total amount to be obligated or 
expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other 
procurement account, for the actual construction of the follow-
on ships of the CVN-21 class aircraft carrier program to $8.1 
billion. This section would allow the Secretary of the Navy to 
adjust the limitation amount for economic inflation; changes in 
federal, State or local laws enacted after September 30, 2006; 
outfitting and post-delivery costs; and the amounts of 
increases or decreases in costs of the ship that are 
attributable to the insertion of new technology. The insertion 
of new technology would be limited to those technologies that 
could be used to either lower lifecycle costs or meet an 
emerging threat. This section would require the Secretary to 
report any adjustment to the cost limitation with the 
submission of the annual budget request.

   Section 123--Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for LHA Replacement 
                    Amphibious Assault Ship Program

    This section would limit the total amount to be obligated 
or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other 
procurement account, for each ship of the LHA replacement 
amphibious assault ship program to $2.8 billion. This section 
would allow the Secretary of the Navy to adjust the limitation 
amount for economic inflation; changes in federal, State or 
local laws enacted after September 30, 2006; outfitting and 
post-delivery costs; and the amounts of increases or decreases 
in costs of the ship that are attributable to the insertion of 
new technology. The insertion of new technology would be 
limited to those technologies that could be used to either 
lower lifecycle costs or meet an emerging threat. This section 
would require the Secretary to report any adjustment to the 
cost limitation with the submission of the annual budget 
request.

Section 124--Adherence to Navy Cost Estimates for San Antonio (LPD-17) 
                     Class Amphibious Ship Program

    This section would limit the total amount to be obligated 
or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other 
procurement account, for eight San Antonio class amphibious 
ships (LPD-18, LPD-19, LPD-20, LPD-21, LPD-22, LPD-23, LPD-24 
and LPD-25) to the cost estimates submitted for those ships 
with the fiscal year 2007 budget request. This section would 
allow the Secretary of the Navy to adjust the limitation 
amounts for economic inflation; changes in federal, State or 
local laws enacted after September 30, 2006; outfitting and 
post-delivery costs; and the amounts of increases or decreases 
in costs of the ship that are attributable to the insertion of 
new technology. The insertion of new technology would be 
limited to those technologies that could be used to either 
lower lifecycle costs or meet an emerging threat. This section 
would require the Secretary to report any adjustment to the 
cost limitation with the submission of the annual budget 
request.

    Section 125--Multiyear Procurement Authority for V-22 Tiltrotor 
                            Aircraft Program

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy, 
acting as executive agent for the Secretary of the Air Force 
and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to enter 
into a multiyear contract, beginning with the fiscal year 2008 
program year, for procurement of up to 211 V-22 tiltrotor 
aircraft, of which not more than 185 would be in the MV-22 
configuration and not more than 26 would be in the CV-22 
configuration.

  Section 126--Quality Control in Procurement of Ship Critical Safety 
                       Items and Related Services

    This section would amend chapter 633 of title 10, United 
States Code, by appending a new section 7317 that would require 
the Secretary of Defense to prescribe in regulations a quality 
control policy for the procurement of ship critical safety 
items and the procurement of modifications, repair, and 
overhaul of such items. This section would require the head of 
the design control activity for ship critical safety items 
establish processes to identify and managethese activities, the 
head of the contracting activity for a ship critical safety item enter 
into a contract for these activities only with an approved source, and 
the ship critical safety items delivered and the services performed 
meet the technical and quality requirements specified by the design 
control activity. This section would define the term ``ship critical 
safety item'' as any part, assembly, or support equipment of a vessel, 
the failure, malfunction, or absence of which may cause a catastrophic 
or critical failure resulting in loss or serious damage to the vessel, 
or unacceptable risk of personal injury or loss of life. This section 
would also make conforming amendments to section 2319 of title 10, 
United States Code.

          Section 127--DD(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program

    This section would authorize $2.6 billion in Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy for the next generation destroyer (DD(X)) 
program. This section would further authorize the Secretary of 
the Navy to enter into two contracts simultaneously for the 
DD(X) program during fiscal year 2007. One contract would 
provide for detail design and construction of a DD(X), while 
the other contract would provide only for detail design of a 
DD(X).

   Section 128--Sense of Congress that the Navy Make Greater Use of 
   Nuclear-Powered Propulsion Systems in its Future Fleet of Surface 
                               Combatants

    This section finds that securing and maintaining access to 
affordable sources of oil is a vital national security interest 
for the United States, and that the nation's dependence of 
foreign oil is a threat to that security. The section expresses 
the sense of Congress that the Navy should make greater use of 
alternative technologies, including nuclear power, as a means 
of vessel propulsion for its future fleet of surface 
combatants.

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs


           Section 131--Requirement for B-52 Force Structure

    This section would prohibit the Air Force from retiring any 
B-52 aircraft, except for the one B-52 aircraft no longer in 
use by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 
testing. Additionally, this section would require the Air Force 
to maintain a minimum B-52 force structure of 44 combat coded 
aircraft until the year 2018, or until a long-range strike 
replacement aircraft with equal or greater capability than the 
B-52H model has attained initial operational capability status.

             Section 132--Strategic Airlift Force Structure

    This section would require the Air Force to maintain a 
minimum strategic airlift aircraft force structure of 299 
aircraft beginning in fiscal year 2009, and would repeal 
section 132 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136).

         Section 133--Limitation on Retirement of U-2 Aircraft

    This section would preclude the Department of Defense from 
retiring the U-2 aircraft in fiscal year 2007, and would permit 
retirement after fiscal year 2007 only if the Secretary of 
Defense certifies to Congress that the U-2's intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities are no longer 
required.

 Section 134--Multiyear Procurement Authority for F-22A Raptor Fighter 
                                Aircraft

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to enter into a multiyear contract, in accordance with section 
2306b of title 10, United States Code, beginning with the 
fiscal year 2007 program year, for procurement of up to 60 F-
22A Raptor fighter aircraft, for three program years, subject 
to the Secretary of Defense's certification that the conditions 
specified in subsection (a) of section 2306b of title 10, 
United States Code, have been satisfied with respect to that 
contract, and 30 days have elapsed after the date on which the 
Secretary has submitted the certification to Congress.

Section 135--Limitation on Retirement of KC-135E Aircraft During Fiscal 
                               Year 2007

    This section would prohibit the Air Force from retiring 
more than 29 KC-135E aircraft during fiscal year 2007, and 
require the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain all retired 
KC-135Es, beginning in fiscal year 2007, in a condition that 
would allow recall to future service in the Air Force reserve, 
guard, or active forces aerial refueling force structure.

Section 136--Limitation on Retirement of F-117A Aircraft During Fiscal 
                               Year 2007

    This section would limit the number of F-117A aircraft to 
be retired by the Secretary of the Air Force in fiscal year 
2007 to 10 aircraft, and would require that the Secretary of 
the Air Force maintain each F-117A aircraft, retired after 
September 30, 2006, in a condition that would allow recall of 
that aircraft to future service.

          TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $73.2 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee 
recommends $74.1 billion, an increase of $908.6 million to the 
budget request.


             Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $10.9 billion for Army 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $10.9 billion, an increase of 
$76.7 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced hypersonic weapon mission planning and control

    The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63305A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for 
development of mission planning and control for the advanced 
hypersonic weapon.
    The committee understands that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review focuses on the need to provide a prompt global strike 
capability and the advanced hypersonic weapon (AHW) has the 
potential to meet this mission with a rapid strike response 
over long distances. The committee notes that the U.S. 
Strategic Command and the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense 
Command are already exploring the AHW concept. The committee is 
aware of the need to conduct research into the mission planning 
and control battle management capability that would integrate 
the AHW system into future command and control systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63305A to design, prototype and demonstrate the mission 
planning and control battle management capability for 
integration of the AHW into joint warfighting command exercises 
and simulations.

Applied communications and information networking

    The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 63008A for 
electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funds 
for applied communications and information networking (ACIN).
    The committee notes the importance to the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to integrate state-of-the-art commercial 
technologies in DOD command, control, communications, computer 
and intelligences systems. ACIN has supported this objective to 
enhance high-value military systems with rapidly advancing 
commercial information technologies and innovative applications 
of those technologies.
    The committee supports the application of state-of-the-art 
commercial technology to improve military systems and 
recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63008A for ACIN.

Armored systems modernization

    The budget request included $3.3 billion in PE 64645A for 
armored systems modernization, including $65.5 million for 
reconnaissance platforms and sensors; $107.7 million for 
unmanned ground vehicles; $17.7 million for unattended sensors; 
$146.1 million for sustainment; $570.2 million for manned 
ground vehicles; and $2.4 billion for system of systems 
engineering and program management, as part of approximately 
$3.7 billion requested for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) 
program.
    The committee continues to support a FCS program strategy 
that is affordable and enables early spin out of FCS 
technologies into the current force, a top priority of the 
Chief of Staff of the Army.
    The committee continues to have several concerns with the 
FCS program:
          (1) In a prepared statement before the Subcommittee 
        on Tactical Air and Land Forces on April 4, 2006, the 
        Government Accountability Office indicated, ``The 
        program remains a long way from having the level of 
        knowledge it should have had before it started product 
        development . . . FCS has all the markers for risk that 
        would be difficult to accept for any single system, 
        much less a complex multi-system effort.''
          (2) The FCS Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM), 
        approving the programs entry into systems development 
        and demonstration, was signed on May 17, 2003. The ADM 
        directed that there be a milestone B update and 
        independent cost estimate by November 2004. Almost 
        three years later there has been no milestone B update 
        nor an independent cost estimate.
          (3) Although firm system-level requirements should 
        have been established at the start of the program, the 
        process of setting and refining FCS system-level 
        requirements may not be complete until the preliminary 
        design review in 2008.
          (4) The projected dates for maturing critical 
        technologies have slipped, and some technologies are 
        not expected to mature until well into the design phase 
        of the program and possibly into production.
          (5) FCS design and production maturity would not be 
        demonstrated under the current acquisition strategy 
        until after the production decision is made.
          (6) The low level of knowledge available today on 
        requirements and technologies makes FCS cost 
        projections very uncertain. FCS program costs are 
        estimated at $160.7 billion, an increase of 76 percent 
        since the program began.
    The committee notes that funding for the FCS program 
represents a significant portion of the Army's modernization 
budget for the next 20 or more years. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Army estimates that 
total procurement costs for the first 15 brigades' worth of 
systems is just over $100.0 billion, which translates into an 
average unit procurement cost of $6.7 billion per brigade at 
three FCS BCTs per year. In 2005, based on resource 
constraints, the Army reduced the yearly procurement goal of 
three FCS brigade combat teams (BCTs) per year to 1.5 per year. 
With the planned purchase of 1.5 brigades per year to begin in 
2015, the FCS program requires $8.0 billion to $10.0 billion 
annually. CBO notes that based on historical trends, the FCS 
program costs could grow by 60 percent. CBO estimates that such 
high rates may push the average annual funding needed for the 
FCS program from $8.0 billion to 10.0 billion per year to 
between $14.0 billion to 16.0 billion per year.
    The committee is concerned that the spiraling cost growth 
for Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition programs is at a 
point where it directly places at risk the ability of the 
United States to field weapons platforms in sufficient numbers 
to support U.S. military strategy and national security 
requirements. The committee notes that the Army's spiraling 
costs per FCS BCT are forcing the Army into a situation similar 
to that experienced by the Navy with its next generation 
destroyer (DD(X)) program. Similar to the DD(X) program, the 
costs for a FCS BCT is approaching a price where the Army will 
have to continue to slow down procurement to make the program 
more affordable, reduce the quantities of FCS BCTs, or attempt 
to reduce force structure.
    The committee believes that as the Department proceeds with 
its decisions in reference to the FCS program, that it must 
preserve its ability to change course on acquiring FCS 
capabilities to guard against a situation in which FCS would 
have to be acquired at any cost. The Department must hold the 
Army accountable for delivering FCS within programmed 
resources.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $325.8 
million in PE 64645A for armored systems modernization.

AT4 confined space weapon system enhancements

    The budget request contained $118.1 million in PE 64808A 
for system development and demonstration of landmine warfare 
and barrier technology, but included no funds for enhancements 
to the AT4 confined space (CS) weapon.
    The AT4CS is a shoulder fired weapon system that employs a 
warhead that produces high lethality and incendiary effects 
against armored combat vehicles. The committee notes the AT4CS 
has been utilized in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
Enduring Freedom by dismounted infantrymen and special 
operation forces to great effect, and is currently the only 
shoulder-fired weapon in the Department of Defense inventory 
capable of being fired from inside a room; making this weapon a 
critical combat multiplier in military operations over urban 
terrain.
    The committee understands an anti-structure tandem warhead 
is in development for the AT4CS. The committee is aware this 
warhead would provide military personnel operating within a 
confined space the capability to penetrate 8-inch reinforced 
concrete and 12-inch triple brick walls. The committee is 
supportive of rapidly developing technologies that would 
promote the survivability of military personnel conducting the 
global war on terrorism.
    The committee recommends $121.1 million in PE 64808A, an 
increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of an 
anti-structure tandem warhead for use in the AT4CS.

Center for rotorcraft innovation

    The budget request included $32.8 million in PE 62211A for 
aviation and applied research and technology, but included no 
funds for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation (CRI).
    The Center for Rotorcraft Innovation is a joint effort 
between the rotorcraft industry, academic research centers and 
government partners to increase rotorcraft research in the 
United States. CRI collaborates to expand rotorcraft research 
and development already underway between the rotorcraft 
industry and its government partners in the National Rotorcraft 
Technology Center. It will focus its new research efforts on 
dual-use technologies that have national security and homeland 
defense applications. The committee is aware that the CRI is 
the only initiative of its kind and seeks to further 
international competitiveness and long-term growth of the U.S. 
rotorcraft industry.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in PE 62211A for the CRI.

Digital array radar

    The budget request included $64.6 million in PE 63772A for 
advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology, but 
included no funds for digital array radar development.
    The committee notes the need for reliable counter-fire 
radars for protection against short-range mortar attack. 
Technology advances warrant research and development to 
demonstrate this technology.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million to complete development and test digital array radar 
prototype antenna technology.

Dominant military operations on urban terrain viewer

    The budget request included $19.2 million in PE 62270A, but 
included no funds for the dominant military operations on urban 
terrain viewer (DMV).
    The committee is aware of an applied research technology 
that has been successfully demonstrated that provides the 
capability to detect, locate, and track moving and stationary 
persons within structures from in excess of 100 meters. 
Employment of such a capability could provide field commanders 
with a tactical advantage, improved situational awareness, and 
save lives. A tactical prototype is necessary to complete field 
evaluation and testing of this capability.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $7.4 
million in PE 62270A for the design, development, and testing 
of a DMV prototype.

Environmental quality technology

    The budget request contained $5.2 million in PE 63779A for 
projects focused on validating the general military utility or 
cost reduction potential of environmental quality technologies, 
but included no funds for promising research ongoing at 
facilities around the United States and in other countries to 
develop lightweight vanadium micro-alloyed steels. The 
committee recommends that the Department of Defense proceed 
with full-scale demonstration projects and the transfer of this 
technology to the domestic steel industry to increase the 
potential benefits of vanadium micro-alloyed steels.
    The committee recommends $9.6 million in PE 63779A, an 
increase of $4.4 million for the Vanadium Technology 
Partnership.

Excalibur precision guided artillery munition

    The budget request contained $102.5 million in PE 64814A 
for the Excalibur XM982 precision guided extended range 
artillery projectile and lifecycle management cost reduction 
strategies.
    The committee recognizes the potential benefits provided 
through studies of manufacturing technologies and methodologies 
to help lower production costs without sacrificing stated 
performance requirements of a weapon system. The committee 
notes in fiscal year 2005, Excalibur XM982 lifecycle 
improvement program efforts were able to reduce the production 
cost of each projectile by 14.1 percent. The committee also 
notes the fiscal year 2006 cost reduction efforts built upon 
previous work and expanded production cost reduction of the 
canard actuation system, as well as insensitive munitions 
design improvements for the base and warhead of the projectile 
identified in the lean design review.
    The committee is aware the Excalibur XM982 projectile is 
proceeding into early production to support an urgent fielding 
requirement in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee 
understands the Excalibur XM982 would potentially reduce 
collateral damage in urban environments and serve as a 
significant combat multiplier to military personnel.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $112.5 million in PE 
64814A, an increase of $11.0 million for the rapid fielding of 
the Excalibur XM982 Block Ia-1 projectile and for the 
continuation of lifecycle improvement costs.

Flexible display initiative

    The budget request contained $38.4 million in PE 62120A for 
electronics and electronic devices, but included no funds for 
the flexible display initiative.
    The committee is aware that new flexible display technology 
has the potential to provide the military with technology to 
fabricate high definition displays on rugged conformable, 
flexible substrates. The committee notes that the United States 
Display Consortium coordinates these efforts with over 80 
companies, using investments from both the public and private 
industry to accelerate the development of technologies and 
products needed by the Army, other military services, and 
various national security agencies.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 62120A for the flexible display initiative.

Gas-engine driven air conditioning system demonstrations

    The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 63734A for 
military engineering, but included no funds for unitary gas-
engine driven air conditioning (GEDAC) system demonstrations.
    The committee is aware that GEDAC use on bases in the 
southwest has the potential to save significant electric power 
and reduce water usage.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 
million in PE 63734A for GEDAC system demonstrations.

High assurance secure object proxy

    The budget request contained $120.5 million in PE 35208A 
for distributed common ground/surface systems, but included no 
funds for high assurance secure object proxy technology 
development.
    The committee notes that high assurance secure object proxy 
(HASOP) technology could significantly enhance the ability of 
the Army to synchronize and integrate organic, joint and 
multinational sensors and collection capabilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
35208A, for HASOP development.

Human systems integration

    The budget request contained $18.9 million in PE 62716A for 
human factors engineering applied research, including $3.1 
million for efforts supporting manpower and personnel 
integration (MANPRINT).
    The committee recognizes human systems integration (HSI) 
initiatives as a means for reducing total ownership costs of 
weapons programs, and continues to support efforts to more 
formally consider HSI issues earlier in the acquisition cycle. 
As previously noted in the committee report accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (H. 
Rept. 109-89), the committee remains concerned about the 
overall level of coordination and support of HSI efforts 
throughout the Department of Defense (DOD).
    The committee notes the reporting requirement included in 
H. Rept. 109-89 to assess HSI activity throughout DOD 
acquisition programs. The committee is in receipt of a 
preliminary assessment and understands that a more 
comprehensive review is forthcoming. Concurrent with the 
recommendations contained in the interim report, the committee 
urges the department to establish a joint HSI Steering Group, 
continue the collaborative development of HSI modeling within 
and across all services, and strive for greater procedural and 
regulatory HSI uniformity throughout the Department. Further, 
the committee expects the completion of the comprehensive HSI 
review in an expeditious manner.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million in PE 62716A for MANPRINT.

Integrated digital environment service model

    The budget request contained $21.2 million in PE 62782A for 
command, control, and communications technology, but included 
no funding for the Integrated Digital Environment Service 
Model. The committee understands that this program will allow 
the Army to conduct much needed interoperability analysis of 
the various communications, command, and control technologies 
now under development. Most of today's systems were designed 
for specific needs; such systems must be integrated into the 
overall Global Information Grid for continued effectiveness.
    The committee recommends $25.2 million in PE 62782A for 
command, control, and communications technology, an increase of 
$4.0 million for the Integrated Digital Environment Service 
Model.

Intelligent surveillance sensor suite

    The budget request included $44.3 million in PE 63710A for 
night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for the 
intelligent surveillance sensor suite.
    The intelligence surveillance sensor suite is intended to 
be used for perimeter security and intrusion detection at high 
value sites, including chemical storage facilities, securing 
ammunition caches, and forward operating bases. It employs 
multiple detection and assessment technologies for a variety of 
terrain applications.
    The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE 
63710A for the fabrication and testing of multiple versions of 
the intelligent surveillance and sensor suite to validate 
technical data prior to competitive procurement.

Joint land attack cruise missile defense and micro electro mechanical 
        system

    The budget request contained $264.5 million in PE 12419A 
for the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missiles Defense (JLENS) 
project.
    The committee understands the critical role that the JLENS 
Elevated Netted Sensor program plays in cruise missile defense. 
The committee further understands that the Micro Electro 
Mechanical (MEMS) demonstration radar system is an important 
risk reduction effort in the JLENS acquisition strategy.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
12419A to complete Phase II development of the Lightweight X-
Band Radar MEMS Electronically Steerable Antenna technology 
demonstration.

Light utility vehicle

    The budget request contained $59.3 million in PE 62601A for 
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funds 
for the continued development of a light utility vehicle (LUV) 
demonstrator.
    The committee is aware the development of a LUV 
demonstrator could be accelerated due to previous research in 
LUV technology by the National Automotive Center. The committee 
understands the base LUV platform would be improved based on 
lessons learned through previous development testing. The 
committee notes improvements to the base platform would include 
prognostics and diagnostics for systems such as the drive-
train, suspension, and steering.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 
million in PE 62601A to continue the design, development, and 
delivery of an improved LUV demonstrator.

Lightweight small arms technologies

    The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 63607A for 
the joint service small arms program, including $6.2 million 
for lightweight small arms technologies (LSAT). The LSAT 
program is attempting to reduce the weight of current soldier 
small arms and small caliber ammunition by 30 to 40 percent.
    The committee understands small arms and small caliber 
ammunition account for two of the four heaviest items an 
infantryman wears or carries into combat. The committee notes 
that the basic infantryman entering combat can be required to 
carry combat configured loads of equipment, that combined, can 
exceed 90 pounds. The committee is supportive of efforts that 
would accelerate advanced technologies to reduce the combat 
carrying equipment load for dismounted infantrymen, as well as 
notes the benefits lighter combat configured equipment loads 
would have on soldier performance and mobility.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $14.7 million in PE 
63607A, an increase of $7.5 million to accelerate the 
development of caseless small caliber ammunition and to 
accelerate the early ``spin out'' of lightweight technology 
enhancements to existing small arms weapon programs.

Long-term armoring strategy

    The committee understands the Army's long-term armoring 
strategy (LTAS) is a long-term capabilities-based armoring 
strategy for tactical wheeled vehicles (TWVs) that would 
provide greater protection to TWVs than the currently fielded 
add-on-armor kits, as well as provide battlefield commanders 
with the capability to change protection levels based on the 
mission, threat, or technology changes by using an A-Kit/B-Kit 
concept.
    The committee understands LTAS is not a program in itself, 
but rather an armor initiative that would address commonality 
and standardization of armor-related components across the TWV 
fleet. The committee notes the LTAS supports the development of 
an integral A-Kit composed of hard-to-install components and 
armor panels with structural attachment points for B-Kit armor 
panels and components. The committee further notes the B-Kit 
concept would provide units with the flexibility to remove 
armor during peacetime operations, as well as improve 
reliability, maintainability, and fuel economy for TWVs. 
Finally, the committee notes the LTAS would allow for the 
upgrade of armor protection as the threat increases or as new 
armoring technologies are developed.
    The committee supports this initiative and commends the 
Army for pursuing this capabilities based strategy. The 
committee has concerns over the implementation strategy and 
whether adequate resources are programmed for the LTAS for all 
families of TWVs across the Future Years Defense Program 
(FYDP). The committee strongly encourages the Army to 
adequately fund LTAS within the FYDP and to continue to pursue 
light weight vehicle armor technology solutions to maximize 
ballistic protection and vehicle payload capacity.

Medical advanced technology

    The budget request contained $50.8 million in PE 63002A for 
advanced technology research for healthy, medically protected 
soldiers, but included no funds for the advancement of smart 
sensing technologies for remote notification of catastrophic 
physiological events, for evaluating the effectiveness of 
oxygen diffusion dressings to accelerate wound healing and 
reduce infection for soft tissue trauma care, or for 
advancements of the Propaq monitor.
    The committee recommends $58.3 million in PE 63002A medical 
advanced technology, an increase of $3.0 million for 
Nightengale, remote on-body sensing technologies; an increase 
of $1.0 million for evaluation and development of oxygen 
diffusion dressings for accelerated healing of battlefield and 
other wounds; and an increase of $3.5 million for Thunderbolt, 
the advanced Propaq monitor.

Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment--SDD

    The budget request contained $14.5 million in PE 64807A for 
advanced development of medical materiel within the system 
demonstration and low rate initial production portions of the 
acquisition lifecycle, but included no funds for a Leishmania 
diagnostic skin test phase III clinical trial. The development 
of a diagnostic skin test for Leishmaniasis shows promise, 
having successfully been tested in phase I safety trials and 
with a phase II trial scheduled for 2006. Leishmaniasis is not 
easily diagnosed, yet U.S. military hospitals have treated over 
700 clinical cases of Leishmaniasis in military personnel 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.7 million in PE 
64807A for development of a Leishmania Diagnostic Skin Test.

Miniaturized sensors for small and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles

    The budget request included $23.9 million in PE 62709A for 
night vision technology, but included no funds for miniaturized 
sensors for small and tactical unmanned aerial systems (UAVs).
    The committee notes that among the major requirements for 
UAVs are miniaturized and wide bandwidth visible, infrared, and 
radar imaging sensors. Emphasis has been on the larger UAVs and 
sensor development has continued to lag behind vehicle 
development, which presents significant power, weight, and 
cooling challenges in adapting sensors for use in small and 
tactical UAVs.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $6.0 
million for miniaturized sensor development for small and 
tactical UAVs.

Missile recycling capability technology

    The budget request contained $10.3 million in PE 63103A for 
explosives demilitarization technology, but contained no funds 
for missile recycling capability technology.
    The committee is aware missile recycling capability 
technology provides the Army with an environmentally friendly 
and cost effective means of disposal for tactical missiles. The 
committee is also aware this capability is transitioning to 
prototype production capability. The committee notes this 
capability reduces the usage of open burn/open detonation for 
disposing of tactical missiles, as well as complies with 
current environment regulations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63103A to accelerate the transition of missile recycling 
capability technology.

Mobile assessment detection and response system

    The budget request included $74.7 million in PE 63004A for 
weapons and munitions advanced technology, but included no 
funds for the mobile assessment detection and rapid response 
system (MDARS).
    The MDARS unmanned ground vehicle currently provides the 
capability to patrol, detect intruders, and remotely determine 
inventory status. The committee is aware of requirements to 
increase vehicle speed, incorporate operator-controlled non-
lethal weapons, and incorporate on-the-move intruder detection.
    The committee recommends an additional $6.5 million in PE 
63004A to integrate additional capabilities into MDARS.

Next-generation advanced materials research

    The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63305A for 
Army missile defense systems integration.
    The committee understands that the development of advanced 
composite materials can enhance the performance of both current 
and next generation weapons systems. The committee notes that 
lighter composite materials can significantly improve the 
design, manufacturing, and performance of future Army 
conventional missile launchers.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63305A to fabricate an integrated missile canister/multi-round 
pack using state-of-the-art lightweight high strength carbon 
composites.

Polymer matrix composites for rotorcraft drive systems

    The budget request included $64.7 million in PE 63003A for 
aviation advanced technology, but included no funds for the 
demonstration of polymer matrix composite drive trains.
    The committee notes the low level of funding for technology 
development for rotorcraft. Improving the capability of 
rotorcraft drive systems and reducing the operational cost of 
rotorcraft operation is fundamental to programs like the Joint 
Heavy Lift Program. These improvements may be achieved through 
the introduction of non-metallic structures as critical drive 
system components. Advancements in composite materials and 
process technologies offer significant improvements over their 
metallic counterparts and provide for the elimination of 
corrosion, less fatigue, significant reductions in weight, and 
lower acquisition and ownership costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63003A to demonstrate full scale polymer matrix composite drive 
train test articles under the rotorcraft drive system-21 
program.

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system

    The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 63008A for 
electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funds 
for the portable and mobile emergency broadband system.
    The committee is aware the portable and mobile emergency 
broadband system, based on emerging commercial technology, 
would allow for the rapid establishment of emergency 
communications networks.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63008A to complete the critical development of the portable and 
mobile emergency broadband system.

Product lifecycle management plus

    The budget request contained $55.3 million in PE 33141A for 
the global combat support system, but contained no funding to 
accelerate the Product Lifecycle Management Plus system.
    The committee believes that the Army's legacy logistics 
business systems are outmoded and supports the creation of an 
integrated Army logistics environment. The committee believes 
the Product Lifecycle Management Plus system is an essential 
part of future Army logistics systems and supports its rapid 
deployment.
    The committee recommends $61.3 million in PE 33141A for the 
global combat support system, an increase of $6.0 million to 
accelerated deployment of the Product Lifecycle Management Plus 
system.

Radiation hardening initiative

    The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63305A for 
Army missile defense systems integration.
    The committee is aware of the military requirement to 
protect our space assets from the effects of high-altitude 
nuclear weapons and the resulting electro-magnetic pulse. The 
committee supports efforts to enhance the ability of the 
developers of space technology to leverage the use of existing 
radiation hardened (RadHard) technology initiatives resident in 
the Missile Defense Agency's Space-based Infrared Phase II 
Radiation-Hardening Catalog effort and other space programs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63305A for the radiation hardening initiative to collect 
RadHard technology and component information into one central 
database.

Smart energetics architecture

    The budget request included $42.1 million in PE 63313A for 
missile and rocket advanced technology, but included no funds 
for the smart energetics architecture project.
    The committee is aware that the smart energetics 
architecture project offers the potential to reduce traditional 
tactical missile launch system weight by 60 percent, 
significantly lower system power requirements, and provide 
savings in lifecycle costs by simplifying assembly, 
installation and use.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $6.0 
million in PE 63313A for the smart energetics architecture 
project.

Stryker vehicle open architecture electronic enhancements

    The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 63653A for 
the advanced tank armament system, but included no funds for 
Stryker vehicle open architecture electronic enhancements.
    The committee understands the Army's modernization strategy 
has identified capability gaps in current forces that require 
the integration of network-centric capabilities into the 
current Stryker brigade combat teams. The committee notes that 
the incorporation of open systems electronics architecture into 
the Stryker vehicles would support block upgrades and the early 
adoption of emerging network-centric warfare capabilities into 
the Stryker brigade combat teams.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63653A for Stryker vehicle open architecture electronic 
enhancements in support of the Army's modernization strategy.

Tactical wheeled vehicle product improvement program

    The budget request contained no funds for the tactical 
wheeled vehicle (TWV) product improvement program (PIP).
    The committee understands the Army is faced with the 
difficult challenge of implementing its TWV modernization 
strategy and must leverage three competing factors in support 
of current operations and fleets, transforming TWVs to attain 
future fleet capabilities and achieving modularity 
requirements. The committee notes the Army requires the 
flexibility to rapidly evaluate and integrate readily available 
technology into TWV platforms as part of this TWV modernization 
strategy.
    The committee has concerns over the lack of funding 
programmed for the TWV PIP initiative in the President's 
request. The committee believes TWV PIP technologies would have 
a real-time impact and effect on existing TWVs and would 
provide increased capability in the areas of performance and 
survivability. Consistent with committee views as expressed in 
the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the 
committee continues to support a TWV PIP initiative, as well as 
strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to adequately 
fund this initiative in the Future Years Defense Program.
    The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to 
continue the TWV PIP initiative.

Training-based collaborative research in military consequence 
        management

    The budget request contained $18.9 million in PE 62716A for 
human factors engineering applied research, but contained no 
funding for training-based collaborative research in military 
consequence management efforts.
    The committee recognizes the need for innovative approaches 
to improve military consequence management initiatives, 
especially in complex and dynamic threat environments. The 
committee understands advanced capabilities are necessary in 
the fields of military law enforcement, engineering, chemical-
biological management and training, mines and unexploded 
ordnance, and non-lethal weapons. The committee believes a 
commitment to technology transfer initiatives, coupled with 
efforts to establish well-defined training performance 
measurements, offers the greatest potential for advances in 
training effectiveness.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 
million in PE 62716A for training-based collaborative research.

Transparent armor

    The budget request contained $64.7 million in PE 63003A for 
aviation advanced technology, but contained no funding for 
advanced lightweight armored window technology.
    The committee recognizes the unique threat confronting air 
crews operating rotary aircraft in forward deployed areas. The 
committee is supportive of efforts to rapidly field advanced 
technologies to enhance the protection of military personnel. 
The committee understands that significant opportunities exist 
to facilitate the transition of technologies from research and 
development to testing and fielding, particularly in the area 
of self-protection. The effort to develop transparent, 
lightweight armor is one such opportunity, as it offers the 
promise of improving rotary aircraft survivability.
    The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $2.5 
million in PE 63003A for lightweight armored window technology.

Warfighter sustainment

    The budget request included $25.4 million for warfighter 
technology in PE 62786A, but included no funds for improved 
packaging and content of combat rations.
    The committee is aware of technology that offers to improve 
nutrition of combat rations, as well as reduce the cost and 
bulk of associated packaging. The committee is also aware that 
while combat rations meet the military recommended daily 
allowances for nutrients, but improved nutraceutical content 
could improve battlefield acuity and readiness.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.3 
million in PE 62786A for warfighter sustainment.

            Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $16.9 billion for Navy 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $17.4 billion, an increase of 
$465.5 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced composite riverine craft

    The budget request contained $16.3 million in PE 63713N for 
ocean engineering technology development, but included no funds 
for advanced composite riverine craft.
    The committee remains concerned with the maturity of the 
operational concept for the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command 
(NECC) and has reservations about the rapid pace with which the 
Navy is moving ahead with its development. The committee 
encourages the Navy to fully develop its operational 
requirements for the NECC mission. However, the committee does 
believe that the Navy should investigate options for advanced 
composite hulls for the specialized missions the NECC might be 
required to perform. Advanced composite hulls are expected to 
provide the Navy with the technology for critical capabilities 
in speed, weight, draft, stability, wake and g-force reduction.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in PE 63713N for development and construction of 
advanced composite riverine craft.

Advanced materials for acoustic window applications

    The budget request contained $9.4 million in PE 25620N for 
surface anti-submarine warfare combat system integration, but 
included no funds for advanced materials for acoustic window 
applications.
    The committee is aware that advanced materials for acoustic 
window applications have the potential to reduce signature and 
improve survivability of naval sonar dome windows at a reduced 
cost. Current materials used to minimize turbulence and 
hydrodynamic drag, and protect the sonar system from impacts 
with debris use a non-corroding sandwich dome concept 
constructed using fiber reinforced polymer composite skins with 
a layered elastomeric core. Although this technology meets 
current mission requirements, the committee understands there 
is a need for lower-cost, structurally robust materials for 
acoustic window applications.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million in PE 25620N for a development program on lower cost 
advanced materials for warship design concepts.

Affordable towed array construction/fiber optic towed array 
        construction

    The budget request contained $94.8 million in PE 64503N for 
submarine systems equipment development, including $5.7 million 
to continue the development of affordable towed array 
technology.
    The affordable towed array construction program utilizes 
fiber optic thin line arrays to provide increased operational 
capabilities and reliability improvements over existing 
submarine thin line towed systems. The committee believes that 
the development and fielding of fiber optic towed array 
technology is important to maintain clear acoustical, tactical 
and operational undersea dominance in the littorals.
    Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5 
million in PE 64503N to accelerate reliability testing and 
introduction into the fleet of fiber optic towed arrays.

Affordable weapon system

    The budget request contained $18.6 million in PE 63795N for 
land attack technology, but included no funding for affordable 
weapon system (AWS).
    AWS is a low cost surface launched cruise missile based on 
commercial-off-the-shelf technology that is designed to carry a 
200 pound payload to a range of over 600 miles. AWS is a global 
positioning system/inertial navigation system guided weapon 
with both line-of-sight and satellite data links to allow 
reprogramming in flight. Designed with the capability to 
loiter, the weapon can be commanded by a forward observer to 
attack precise targets on the ground in support of 
expeditionary operations.
    The committee continues to support the concept of a 
loitering missile and is encouraged that the Navy is reviewing 
a capabilities development document for a multipurpose 
loitering missile. The committee supports the restructuring of 
this program to implement a more disciplined approach to system 
engineering and quality assurance, which the committee believes 
is achievable without substantially altering the cost 
objectives of the program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million for 
PE 63795N to complete system design and demonstration, to 
support live-fire testing aboard an amphibious warfare vessel 
subsequent to successful testing from the Self Defense Test 
Ship, and for limited rate initial production (LRIP) of an 
additional 40 missiles. However, the committee expects that no 
funds shall be available for LRIP prior to successful 
completion of an operational evaluation with production 
representative missiles.

Airborne reconnaissance systems

    The budget request contained $35.0 million in PE 35206N for 
airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funding for 
passive collision avoidance and reconnaissance (PCAR).
    The committee is aware that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 
must fly in regions that make them a potential hazard to 
commercial and other manned aircraft. The committee notes that 
PCAR will sense an impending collision and allow the UAV to 
safely avoid approaching aircraft.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $40.0 million, an 
increase of $5.0 million in PE 35206N for PCAR to improve the 
safety of UAV operations.

Aircraft carrier launch and recovery and support equipment 
        modernization

    The budget request contained $33.4 million in PE 64512N for 
shipboard aviation systems development, but included no funds 
to continue development of the aircraft carrier launch and 
recovery (ALRE) and support equipment (SE) modernization 
program.
    The committee understands that the ALRE/SE modernization 
program would develop modernization strategies for existing 
ALRE/SE systems to reduce human error and operating costs while 
improving safety and reliability. The committee also 
understands that ALRE/SE technologies and design tools are 
being developed for the CVN-21 future carrier, and believes 
that application of these technologies to the Navy's existing 
aircraft carrier fleet could substantially reduce operating 
costs for the remainder of their useful life.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 
million in PE 64512N to continue the ALRE/SE modernization 
program.

Ballistic trajectory extended range munition

    The budget request contained $18.6 million in PE 63795N for 
land attack technology, but included no funds to continue the 
ballistic trajectory extended range munition (BTERM) 
demonstration program.
    The committee notes that the Navy's current effort to field 
the extended range guided munition (ERGM) faces significant 
technological, cost and schedule performance challenges to meet 
the Navy's requirement for precision targeting. The committee 
understands that the BTERM program provides the Navy with an 
alternative to the ERGM global positioning system/inertial 
navigational system long-range, precise fire capability. The 
committee further notes that until recently, the Navy intended 
to re-compete the system design and development contract, but 
later decided to reverse course and continue with ERGM 
development. The committee remains greatly concerned with the 
Navy's ability to provide naval surface fire support for 
expeditionary forces ashore and strongly recommends that the 
Navy re-compete this requirement.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in PE 63795N, to continue the development of the BTERM 
demonstration program.

Bio-film packaging applied research

    The budget request contained $90.0 million for PE 62236N 
for warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no 
funds for bio-film packaging applied research.
    The committee notes that environmental quality technologies 
enable sustained world-wide Navy operations in compliance with 
all local, State, regional, national and international laws, 
regulations and agreements. The committee understands that bio-
film packaging offers an environmentally friendly alternative 
to solve the plastic waste disposal issue aboard Navy ships. 
Unlike plastic packaging that cannot be thrown overboard and 
disposed of because it is derived from hydrocarbons, bio-film 
packaging waste can be disposed of at sea because it will break 
down into bio-compatible components in ocean water.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62236N for development of durable bio-pallet wrap and 
packaging.

Cobra Judy ship replacement

    The budget request contained $135.4 million in PE 35149N 
for the Cobra Judy ship replacement program.
    The Cobra Judy program is a single ship-based radar suite 
for world-wide technical data collection against ballistic 
missiles in flight. The current Cobra Judy ship, the USNS 
Observation Island, is unsustainable and is scheduled to go out 
of service in 2012. The radar data and imaging from the Cobra 
Judy platform supports a range of activities including 
Department of State treaty monitoring and verification, and 
ballistic missile defense development and testing. Failure to 
replace the Cobra Judy ship by 2011 will result in a potential 
gap in coverage.
    The committee fully supports the Cobra Judy ship 
replacement program and recommends $135.4 million in PE 35149N, 
the amount of the budget request.

Common submarine radio room

    The budget request contained $94.8 million in PE 64503N for 
SSN-688 and Trident modernization, but included no funds for 
the common submarine radio room.
    The committee is aware that the common submarine radio room 
provides a modern, automated, high capacity, interoperable 
communications system across submarine classes. It employs an 
open system architecture that maximizes the use of commercial-
off-the-shelf hardware and software. The committee recommends 
funds to accelerate the development and deployment of the 
common submarine radio room.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 
64503N to be used for the common submarine radio room.

Conventional Trident modification

    The budget request contained $77.0 million in PE 64327N for 
development of an advanced strike capability which will 
demonstrate the feasibility of modifying the Trident II (D5) 
strategic weapon system to carry conventional payloads.
    The Navy is undertaking this effort to develop the 
conventional precision global strike capability called for in 
the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. The committee understands that 
the existing Trident weapons system provides an opportunity to 
develop this long-range conventional strike capability by 
leveraging existing technology at relatively low cost.
    The committee, however, is concerned that the development 
of this conventional capability on a submarine platform that 
has historically carried nuclear armed ballistic missiles may 
present concerns relating to the misinterpretation of the 
launch of a missile carrying a conventional warhead for one 
carrying a nuclear warhead. The committee is aware that the 
Department of Defense is beginning to engage members of the 
international community to discuss the U.S. intent behind the 
conventional strike capability, as well as measures to preclude 
misinterpretation of a conventional launch. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to continue this important 
policy dialog with others in the international community.
    The committee is also concerned with the costs associated 
with the expenditure of a conventional warhead carried on a 
Trident missile. While there may be high-value targets worth 
the price of a conventionally equipped Trident missile, it is 
not clear what scenarios would call for employment of the 
conventional Trident missile.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the 
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007, a report 
on the following:
          (1) The status of discussions with other countries on 
        the concern of misinterpretation of a conventional 
        Trident missile strike for a nuclear attack;
          (2) The proposed concept of operations detailing the 
        sequence of events for employing this weapon; and
          (3) An assessment of the cost-effectiveness of using 
        this weapon against selected targets.
    The committee recommends $30.0 million in PE 64327N to 
explore the feasibility of modifying the Trident II strategic 
weapon system to carry conventional payloads, a decrease of 
$47.0 million.

Defense research sciences

    The budget request contained $366.6 million in PE 61153N 
for defense research sciences, but included no funds for 
investigations of carbon nanotube-based radiation hard non-
volatile random access memory (RAM) or for expanding the naval 
science and educational pipeline pilot program.
    The committee recognizes the need to protect essential 
electronic systems and applications during critical operations 
from the harsh effects of natural and man-made radiation. 
Therefore, the committee believes there is a need to ensure the 
continual improvement of radiation-hardened memory, with 
particular emphasis on a new generation of radiation hardened 
devices constructed with single-walled carbon nanotube 
materials.
    The committee also recognizes the need to reverse the trend 
of fewer U.S. students entering college programs to pursue 
science, technology, engineering, and math degrees. The naval 
science and educational pipeline (N-STEP) pilot program in 
Virginia has provided science-related curriculum enhancements 
at the K-12 level, in partnership with the Naval Surface 
Warfare Center--Dahlgren Division.
    The committee recommends $383.1 million in PE 61153N, an 
increase of $9.0 million for development of carbon nanotube-
based radiation hard non-volatile RAM and an increase of $7.5 
million to expand the N-STEP pilot program to other states with 
naval warfare center laboratories, such as California, 
Maryland, and Rhode Island.

Detection and recovery of unexploded ordnance

    The budget request contained $25.3 million in PE 65873M for 
Marine Corps program wide support, but included no funds to 
provide technology that would advance the detection and 
recovery of unexploded ordnance (UXO).
    The committee is aware that many former and current 
military training sites pose a high safety risk because of the 
presence of UXO that could sometimes include 1,000 pound bombs. 
The committee understands that no single sensor is capable of 
providing the complete solution for detection, recovery, and 
removal of UXO. The committee encourages the continued 
development of a system of systems approach that would utilize 
existing and near-term technology to identify, recover, and 
remove UXO at military training sites.
    The committee recommends $29.3 million in PE 65873M, an 
increase of $4.0 million to advance the development of a sensor 
suite and platform that would rapidly detect, recover, and 
remove UXO at military training sites.

Dismounted soldier training test instrumentation

    The budget request contained $218.5 million in PE 26313M 
for Marine Corps communications systems development, but 
included no funds for dismounted soldier or marine training 
test instrumentation.
    The committee understands this system provides advanced 
training capabilities for marines conducting individual and 
small unit operations through the use of commercially available 
communication system and movement tracking technology. The 
committee recognizes this project develops an instrumentation 
capability that allows real-time tracking of individual 
dismounted infantrymen or marines conducting training on 
military training ranges as well as allows for rapid post-
operation reconstruction and feedback to soldiers and marines. 
The committee notes this particular capability augments the 
training readiness of soldiers and marines preparing for combat 
deployment in the global war on terrorism.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
26313M for dismounted soldier or marine training test 
instrumentation.

Distributed common ground system

    The budget request included $16.6 million in PE 35208N for 
the Distributed Common Ground System-Navy (DCGS-N), as well as 
$78.3 million in Common Imagery Ground Surface Systems for the 
DCGS-N.
    The committee recognizes the potential benefits of a fully 
capable, completely interoperable DCGS-N system for service, 
joint, and interagency connectivity in support of combatant 
command priorities. The committee understands that the 
acquisition plan includes funding for the procurement and 
fielding of 34 DCGS-N 1.1 systems, with an eventual transition 
to a more advanced 1.2 configuration. The committee understands 
the DCGS-N 1.2 version represents a greater level of capability 
in terms of enterprise interoperability with other service, 
joint, and interagency connections.
    The committee is concerned about the DCGS-N program delay 
since submission of the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The 
committee understands that the fiscal year 2007 budget request 
included funding for the procurement of as many as six 1.1 
DCGS-N systems prior to completion of the program's operational 
evaluation (OPEVAL) milestone, and notes that OPEVAL is not 
expected to occur until the latter part of the fiscal year. The 
committee notes that a typical low to moderate risk acquisition 
schedule completes OPEVAL prior to low-rate initial production 
(LRIP) activities.
    The committee strongly recommends that the Department of 
the Navy further accelerate technology development for a more 
robust and interoperable DCGS-N system. The committee further 
urges the Department to reduce programmatic risk resulting from 
a lack of concurrency between research and development and LRIP 
activities.

DockShock ship shock test system

    The budget request contained $61.5 million for PE 63123N 
for force protection advanced technology, but included no funds 
for DockShock ship shock test system.
    The committee is aware that DockShock is a proposed 
replacement system for the current practice of conducting ship 
shock testing using large explosives in the open ocean. The 
DockShock concept employs non-explosive, electro-chemical or 
electro-mechanical pressure source arrays that can be used at 
shore side or near shore locations. The committee understands 
that the DockShock system would provide the Navy with a more 
accurate, environmentally friendly, less costly process for 
testing the survivability of Navy ships.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63123N to continue development and testing of the DockShock 
ship shock test system.

DP-2 vectored thrust aircraft

    The budget request contained $76.8 million in PE 63114N for 
power projection advanced technology, but included no funding 
for the DP-2 vectored thrust aircraft program.
    The committee understands that the DP-2 is a twin engine, 
thrust vectored, high-speed combat transport aircraft capable 
of hover, as well as vertical take-off and landing. DP-2 has 
the potential to provide leap-ahead capabilities to special 
operations forces and other forces. The Office of Naval 
Research set a series of milestones for unmanned tethered and 
untethered hover testing, leading to manned, untethered testing 
in ground effect at Yuma Proving Ground.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for PE 
63114N to continue execution of the current DP-2 program test 
plan.

E-2 advanced hawkeye identification friend or foe technology 
        development

    The budget request contained $497.8 million in PE 64234N 
for the development, demonstration and testing of the E-2 
advanced hawkeye (AHE) aircraft, but included no funds to 
accelerate the development of identification friend or foe 
(IFF) systems.
    The E-2 AHE program is developing a replacement for the 
existing radar and other system components to modernize the E-
2C weapon system to maintain open ocean mission capability 
while providing an effective littoral surveillance, battle 
management and theater air and missile defense capability. The 
committee understands that one of the key technologies in the 
E-2 AHE program is the development of Mode 5 and Mode S IFF 
systems which will provide improved identification of friendly 
or civilian aircraft. The committee is aware that accelerating 
the development of this technology in fiscal year 2007 would 
reduce program risk and ensure that Mode 5 and Mode S IFF 
capabilities are integrated into the first E-2 AHE prior to 
delivery.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $505.0 million in PE 
64234N for the E-2 AHE development program, an increase of $7.2 
million for acceleration of Mode 5 and Mode S development.

Electro-optic passive antisubmarine warfare system

    The budget request contained $16.8 million in PE 63254N for 
antisubmarine warfare (ASW) systems development, including $9.9 
million for the electro-optic passive ASW system (EPAS).
    The committee is concerned by the proliferation and 
expansion of submarine forces worldwide, and views as a high 
priority the development of ASW capabilities for acoustically 
challenging littoral environments. The committee understands 
that EPAS will incorporate a variety of optical and infrared 
sensors into fieldable prototype systems to improve airborne 
ASW capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63254N for EPAS to accelerate development, fielding, and 
testing of prototype systems.

F/A-18 squadrons

    The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 24136N for 
F/A-18 squadron development, but included no funds for an 
aircraft composite missile launcher improvement program, for 
accelerated development of a digital electronic warfare (EW) 
system for F/A-18C/D and AV-8B aircraft, or for an F/A-18 
digital heads-up display (HUD) upgrade.
    The committee understands that existing aluminum aircraft 
missile launch suspension equipment may have limited life and 
may not support the next generation of guided missiles. The 
committee further understands that new technologies have 
emerged that may have the potential to increase missile launch 
suspension equipment service life and reduce lifecycle costs. 
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million to develop, design, and demonstrate technologies that 
would improve missile launcher suspension equipment. The 
demonstration should include a side-by-side test of the 
improved missile launcher with an existing system to evaluate 
the advantages of new technologies.
    The committee understands that EW technologies developed 
for the future F-35 and F-22 aircraft can be applied to address 
deficiencies in the Navy and Marine Corps' existing ALQ-126B 
defensive countermeasures system, the ALQ-164 jamming pod, and 
the ALR-67(V)2 radar warning receiver. The committee also 
understands that development of a digital EW system for the 
Navy's F/A-18C/D and the Marine Corps' AV-8B aircraft would 
provide improved capabilities against future electronic threats 
and improve commonality across the F/A-18C/D and AV-8B aircraft 
fleets, thereby reducing future operations and support costs. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 to 
accelerate the development of a digital EW system for F/A-18C/D 
and AV-8B aircraft.
    The F/A-18 HUD, which serves as the pilot's primary 
targeting system, currently uses a cathode ray tube (CRT) and 
is characterized as an analog solution to display targeting 
information to the pilot. The committee understands that the F/
A-18's CRTs are becoming unreliable and that procurement 
sources for CRTs are diminishing. To address this 
supportability problem, the committee believes that migration 
to a digital HUD solution will lower lifecycle costs, improve 
reliability and performance, and provide higher accuracy with a 
capability to process and display more information to the 
pilot. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.1 
million to begin the development of an F/A-18 digital HUD 
upgrade.
    In total, the committee recommends $48.2 million in PE 
24136N for F/A-18 squadron development, an increase of $17.1 
million.

Flexible payload module and payload interface module development

    The budget request contained $169.6 million in PE 64558N 
for the new design SSN, but included no funds for flexible 
payload module and payload interface module development.
    The committee understands the flexible payload module will 
allow payloads, such as Tomahawk missiles, to be located 
outside of the submarine's pressure hull, resulting in 
significant cost savings. The flexible payload module will 
house the new or existing payloads in a pressure proof or free-
flooded environment. The payload interface module is the 
shipboard structure and standardized interface linking the 
submarine's combat system with the payload.
    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 
64558N to be used for the flexible payload module and payload 
interface module development.

High performance FM fiber-optic link

    The budget request contained $84.9 million in PE 62114N for 
power projection applied research, but included no funding for 
high performance FM fiber-optic links.
    The committee understands that FM fiber optic links could 
be used for high bandwidth transmission of microwave and 
millimeter wave signals, and have potential military 
applications for remoting of communication and radar antennae.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for PE 
62114N for applied research leading to development of high 
performance FM fiber-optic links.

Human systems integration

    The budget request included $82.0 million in PE 63236N for 
warfighter sustainment advanced technology and $8.8 million in 
PE 64703N for personnel, training, simulation, and human 
factors, but contained no funding for Navy manpower and 
personnel integration (SEAPRINT).
    The committee supports further development of SEAPRINT in 
conjunction with other Department of Defense human systems 
integration efforts, and urges additional resources in this 
area.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 63236N and $1.0 million in PE 64703N for 
SEAPRINT, in an effort to further develop human systems 
integration modeling throughout the Department.

Integrated shipboard intelligent surveillance

    The budget request contained $817.5 million for total ship 
system engineering, but included no funding for integrated 
shipboard intelligent surveillance (ISIS).
    The committee places a particularly high priority on force 
protection. The committee believes that commercial-off-the-
shelf surveillance and monitoring technologies offer 
opportunities to improve shipboard security, with respect to 
both the exterior environment and critical interior engineering 
and control spaces. From an engineering and cost perspective, 
the best point to integrate those technologies is early in the 
design process.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for PE 
64300N for integration of ISIS on future Navy combatants.

Joint integrated systems for advanced digital networking

    The budget request contained $748.7 million in PE 33109N 
for satellite communications, but included no funding for joint 
integrated systems for advanced digital networking (JIST-NET).
    JIST-NET has shown great promise in providing integrated 
communications systems situational awareness to combatant 
commanders by identifying satellite communications systems gaps 
and performance issues. The committee is encouraged by JIST-NET 
progress to date and believes further funding to complete 
integration of the network will provide important 
communications capability for the warfighting commander.
    The committee recommends $754.7 million in PE 33109N, an 
increase of $6.0 million for JIST-NET.

Large aperture bow array

    The budget request contained $169.6 million in PE 64558N 
for the new design SSN, but included no funds for the 
development of the large aperture bow (LAB) array sonar for the 
Virginia class attack submarine.
    The committee is aware that the LAB array is a water-backed 
replacement for the air-backed spherical array in the bow of 
Virginia class submarines. The LAB uses longer-lived, lower 
cost sensors and commercial-off-the-shelf electronics, yielding 
a cost savings of about $15.0 million per ship and additional 
lifecycle cost savings. The committee is also aware that with a 
larger aperture and expanded frequency coverage, there will be 
a significant improvement to the anti-submarine warfare 
capabilities of the Virginia class submarine. Importantly, the 
LABalso allows additional payload by providing bow dome 
arrangement flexibility and allows for rapid insertion of future sensor 
technologies, and is a transformational approach to outboard sonar 
array design. The committee understands the preliminary design will be 
completed in 2006 and if inserted in the 2009 Virginia class hull, 
would provide $300.0 million in savings for the remainder of the 
Virginia class submarine construction program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 
64558N to be used for the development of the LAB array sonar 
for the Virginia class attack submarine.

Large displacement unmanned undersea vehicle at-sea launch and recovery 
        system

    The budget request contained $140.4 million in PE 63561N 
for advanced submarine system development, but included no 
funds to develop an at-sea launch and recovery system for the 
large displacement unmanned undersea vehicle (LD-UUV).
    The committee understands that the LD-UUV provides the Navy 
with next-generation capability to detect, track, mitigate and 
defeat enemy threats. The committee notes that the LD-UUV is to 
be compatible with the SSGN platform, serving as a force 
multiplier with its improved payload capabilities and enhanced 
long-range endurance for intelligence, surveillance and 
reconnaissance missions. The committee strongly encourages the 
Navy to devote adequate resources within the Future Years 
Defense Program to continue concept design, development and 
integration of the LD-UUV into the SSGN platform, including its 
requisite stowage, launch and recovery systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63561N to develop and demonstrate the LD-UUV at-sea launch and 
recovery hardware for the SSGN.

Lightweight multi-threat encapsulated ceramic body armor

    The budget request contained $47.6 million in PE 26623M for 
Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms systems, but 
included no funds to advance the development of encapsulated 
ceramic body armor.
    The committee recognizes encapsulating ceramic tiles 
through enhanced bonding and residual compression could 
potentially improve the ballistic performance and durability of 
enhanced small arms protective inserts used in outer tactical 
vests that constitute the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) system. 
The committee understands the Army and the Marine Corps are 
continuously upgrading and modifying existing IBA components.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
26623M to refine and test encapsulated ceramic protective 
inserts. Further, should these tests prove to generate a more 
effective solution than existing IBA ceramic inserts, the 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to use portions 
of funds provided in title XV of this report to begin initial 
procurement of these inserts.

Lithium battery technology

    The budget request contained $124.5 million in PE 11221N 
for strategic submarine and weapons system support, but 
included no funds for superior lithium polymer battery 
development.
    The committee understands that the Navy and the Naval 
Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana are moving away from 
traditional lead acid, nickel cadmium and silver zinc batteries 
and toward newer lithium secondary batteries.
    The committee also understands that a new technology known 
as the superior lithium polymer battery offers improved power 
densities, higher continuous discharge and recharge 
capabilities and wider operating temperatures, with potential 
military application to submersibles and other vehicles.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
11221N for superior lithium polymer battery development.

Marine expeditionary rifle squad

    The budget request contained $0.5 million in PE 63635M for 
Marine Corps ground combat support systems, but included no 
funds for the development of the Marine Expeditionary Rifle 
Squad (MERS) program.
    The MERS program focuses on the holistic, system level 
integration of all items worn, consumed or carried by the 
marine infantry rifle squad and is integral to the Marine Corps 
concept of distributed operations (DO). The committee 
understands MERS, in the near-term would address integration 
issues resulting from the rapid fielding of urgently needed 
weapons and equipment to infantry squads currently operating in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee understands MERS's long-
term objective strategy would provide marine infantry rifle 
squads with fully integrated future equipment systems that 
would be integral to the effectiveness of conducting DO.
    The committee recommends $3.5 million in PE 63635A, an 
increase of $3.0 million to continue the phase development 
strategy of the MERS program.

Maritime identification surveillance technology phased array radar

    The budget request contained $61.7 million in PE 63235N for 
common picture advanced technology, but included no funds for 
the maritime identification surveillance technology (MIST) 
phased array radar system.
    The development of the MIST phased array radar system is 
expected to provide continuous surveillance, identification and 
tracking of all surface ships around naval platforms at sea, or 
in coastal waters and harbors. In addition, the committee is 
aware that this radar system will provide the Navy with an 
advanced phased array radar technology test bed to support 
future radar system technology development and validation.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 
63235N for the development and demonstration of a prototype 
phased array radar system for integration into a MIST sensor 
and networking technology test bed.

Maritime technology

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 78730N for the 
maritime technology program.
    The committee understands that the purpose of the maritime 
technology (MARITECH) program is to reduce the cost of naval 
ship construction, modification, and repair by enhancing the 
efficiency and competitiveness of the U.S. shipbuilding and 
ship repair industries. The committee understands that since 
the late 1970s the Navy has considered capital for facility 
investments to be an allowable cost on contracts that are not 
firm fixed price. The committee is also aware that in the past 
three years, the Navy and industry have agreed to specific 
recapitalization contract incentives in the Virginia class 
submarine and the CVN-21 programs. These incentive clauses have 
allowed the Navy and the contractors to identify improvements 
in sequencing and build processes to lower construction costs. 
The committee encourages the expansion of these efforts to all 
ship procurements, including the Lewis and Clark (T-AKE) class 
program.
    The committee includes a provision (section 1014) that 
creates a shipbuilding industrial base improvement program 
through which the Secretary of the Navy shall award grants and 
loan guarantees to qualified shipyards to improve their 
productivity and cost effectiveness. These authorities will 
allow the Navy to work to an even greater extent with 
shipbuilders to identify and finance process changes, equipment 
investments, and facilities improvements to lower the cost of 
Navy ship procurement. The committee expects that these 
authorities will allow the Navy to achieve savings in the 
construction of the T-AKE class ships, in addition to other 
ship classes, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. 
shipyards. Consequently, the committee recommends providing 
funds for the shipbuilding industrial base improvement program 
and for the enhancement of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship 
repair industrial base.
    The committee recommends $120.0 million in PE 78730N for 
the maritime technology program.
            National shipbuilding research program
    The budget request contained no funds in PE 78730N for the 
national shipbuilding research program.
    The committee understands that the national shipbuilding 
research program (NSRP) provides a unique collaborative 
environment where shipbuilders and government agencies examine 
processes, tooling and management techniques to improve the 
efficiency of the United States shipbuilding industry. The 
committee understands that NSRP operates on a 50-50 cost share 
between government and industry, all results are shared with 
all members, and a conservative estimate for NSRP's return on 
investment is five to one.
    The committee recommends $20.0 million in PE 78730N for the 
national shipbuilding research program.
            Shipbuilding industrial base improvement grants
    The budget request contained no funds in PE 78730N for 
shipbuilding industrial base improvement grants.
    The committee understands the national security importance 
of sustaining viable and efficient shipbuilding and ship repair 
industries in the United States. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends providing grants to U.S. shipyards to facilitate the 
development of innovative design and production technologies 
and processes for naval vessel construction, and the 
development of modernized shipbuilding infrastructure.
    The committee recommends $50.0 million in PE 78730N for 
shipbuilding industrial base improvement grants.
            Shipbuilding industrial base improvement loan guarantees
    The budget request contained no funds in PE 78730N for 
shipbuilding industrial base improvement loan guarantees.
    The committee understands the national security importance 
of sustaining viable and efficient shipbuilding and ship repair 
industries in the United States. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends providing loan guarantees to U.S. shipyards to 
facilitate the acquisition of technologies, processes and 
infrastructure to enhance the efficiency and competitiveness of 
the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industries.
    The committee recommends $50.0 million in PE 78730N for 
shipbuilding industrial base improvement loan guarantees.

Naval surface fire support

    The committee remains deeply concerned by Navy shortfalls 
in providing naval surface fire in support of expeditionary 
warfare.
    At the Navy's request, in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) 
Congress authorized the Secretary of the Navy to strike from 
the Naval Vessel Register the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS 
Iowa. With these retirements, the Navy loses the longest range 
guns in its fleet, 16-inch 50-caliber guns capable of ranging 
24 nautical miles. In the meantime, Navy efforts to improve 
upon, much less replace, this capability have been highly 
problematic.
    The near-term effort involves extending the range of 5-inch 
62-caliber guns on existing Arleigh Burke class destroyers from 
13 nautical miles to more than 40 nautical miles with a rocket 
assisted projectile. The 5-inch extended range guided munition 
(ERGM) contains only 7.2 pounds of high explosive, but 
incorporates global positioning system/inertial navigation 
system guidance to provide precision targeting.
    The ERGM program was initiated in 1996 with a planned 
research and development cost of $78.6 million, which has now 
grown more than 400 percent. Schedule performance has been 
similarly disappointing, with initial operational capability 
slipping a decade from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2011. As 
late as the submission of the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2007, the Navy planned to recompete the system 
demonstration and development (SDD) contract in the third 
quarter of fiscal year 2006, but recently reversed course and 
elected to continue the current contract. The committee 
questions the advisability of this decision. Notwithstanding 
the not insignificant technical challenges, the committee 
believes that program performance has been wanting. The 
committee further notes the existence of other responsible 
sources for the capabilities provided by ERGM, specifically the 
ballistic trajectory extended range munition (BTERM) program 
and a five-inch variant of the long-range land attack 
projectile (LRLAP). The committee strongly believes that fair 
and open competition would best serve the near-term naval 
surface fire support objectives of the Navy.
    The Navy plans to meet its mid-term precision strike 
requirement of greater than 63 nautical miles with the 6-inch 
LRLAP projectile in combination with the advanced gun system 
(AGS), both of which are under development as part of the 
Navy's next generation destroyer (DD(X)) program. The committee 
is encouraged by the progress demonstrated in both the LRLAP 
and AGS engineering development models. The committee notes, 
however, that the first DD(X) will not become operational until 
2012, assuming current timelines hold. Further, the committee 
does not expect that DD(X) will be procured in the quantity 
determined by the Marine Corps as necessary to support major 
combat operations within desired timeframes. In fact, the 
Navy's current long-range shipbuilding plan calls for 
procurement of only seven DD(X)s. Accordingly, the committee 
has strong reservations regarding the Navy's ability to meet 
mid-term fire support requirements.
    In summary, the committee is concerned that the Navy has 
foregone the long-range fire support capability of the 
battleship, has given little cause for optimism with respect to 
meeting near-term developmental objectives, and appears 
unrealistic in planning to support expeditionary warfare in the 
mid-term. The committee views the Navy's strategy for providing 
naval surface fire support as ``high risk,'' and will continue 
to monitor progress accordingly.

Network communication system technology for extreme environments

    The budget request contained $218.5 million in PE 26313M 
for Marine Corps communication systems, but included no funds 
to demonstrate network communication system technology for 
extreme environments.
    The committee understands this technology would use digital 
signal processing software that would enable military personnel 
to rapidly transmit and receive networked services such as 
voice, video, and data, while operating in dense urban or 
heavily forested areas. The committee notes this technology 
would provide capability to transmit services with greater 
bandwidth and more flexibility than provided by current 
systems. The committee also notes this technology could improve 
command decision times and enhance situational awareness at the 
tactical level in both non-line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-
sight conditions.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE 
26313M for Marine Corps communication systems to allow for 
further research and engineering support for network 
communication system technology for extreme environments.

Next-generation electronic warfare simulator

    The budget request contained $372.4 million in PE 64269N 
for the development, demonstration and testing of the EA-18G 
electronic attack aircraft, but included no funds to develop, 
configure and install next-generation electronic warfare 
simulators in the Advanced Weapons Laboratory (AWL) at Naval 
Air Station (NAS) China Lake, California.
    The EA-18G electronic attack aircraft program is developing 
a replacement for the currently used and aging EA-6B aircraft 
to provide a capability to detect, identify, locate, and 
suppress hostile emitters. The committee understands that the 
Department of the Navy has used the F-18 AWL for integration 
and development testing of previous F-18 variants, and believes 
that EA-18G development, test, and evaluation will require 
next-generation electronic warfare simulators to maximize 
laboratory testing, avoid additional flight testing, and reduce 
cost and schedule risk.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $380.4 million in PE 
64269N for the EA-18G development program, an increase of $8.0 
million to develop, configure and install next-generation 
electronic warfare simulators in the AWL at NAS China Lake.

Next-generation Phalanx

    The budget request contained $46.4 million in PE 64756N for 
ship self defense (hard kill), but included no funding for 
next-generation Phalanx.
    Phalanx has been a mainstay of close-in ship self defense 
against anti-ship cruise missiles. The committee believes that 
the Phalanx weapon system has evolutionary potential for 
improved performance, broader capability, and lower lifecycle 
cost. This capability could be applied to the detection, 
tracking, and engagement of small water craft in swarm attacks. 
The committee particularly notes the rapid fielding and recent 
operational success of a land-based Phalanx system for 
defeating indirect fire in Operation Iraqi Freedom, a mission 
for which the system was not originally intended.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for PE 
64756N for development of a next-generation Phalanx weapon 
system.

Permanent magnet motor

    The budget request contained $817.5 million in PE 64300N 
for next generation destroyer (DD(X)) total ship systems 
engineering, but included no funds to continue development and 
testing of the permanent magnet motor (PMM).
    The committee is aware that the Navy originally intended to 
integrate the PMM propulsion and power support technology into 
the DD(X) due to its enhanced power density, acoustic 
performance and weight reduction advantages over competing 
motors. The committee understands that the PMM technology 
experienced a stator insulator failure during the factory 
testing phase; consequently, the Navy decided to forgo this 
technology in favor of the backup advanced induction motor 
(AIM) technology. Since then, the committee understands that 
the stator insulator failure problem encountered with the PMM 
technology has been rectified by substituting a conventional 
insulation material and that the motor has repeatedly passed 
successful tests at full power. The committee recognizes that 
the PMM technology offers significant power efficiency and 
weight reduction advantages over the AIM technology and 
encourages the Navy to consider incorporating this technology 
into future Navy ships.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 
million in PE 64300N to continue land-based testing of the PMM.

Retroreflecting optical communications for special operations

    The budget request contained $84.9 million in PE 62114N for 
power projection applied research, but included no funding for 
retroreflecting optical communications for special operations.
    The committee understands that free space optical 
communications provide advantages over longer wavelength 
techniques in terms of bandwidth, spectrum congestion, 
resistance to jamming, and probability of detection and 
interception. A compact modulating retroreflector with a 
special operations team on the ground would secure a tactical 
data link to an airborne platform without requirement for 
precise pointing.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for PE 
62114N to continue development of retroreflecting optical 
communications and to fabricate prototype hardware for a 
tactical data link.

Sea Fighter (X-Craft)

    The budget request contained $61.5 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology, but included no funding 
for Sea Fighter.
    Sea Fighter, formerly known as X-Craft, is a high speed, 
shallow draft demonstration vessel for littoral warfare. The 
vessel as currently configured has limitations with respect to 
itsdeployability. The committee believes that deployment of Sea 
Fighter can demonstrate and validate many of the Navy's operational 
concepts for littoral warfare, and more specifically reduce risk in the 
Littoral Combat Ship program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $25.7 million for 
PE 63123N for modifications to survivability, command and 
control, armament, and other ship systems to make Sea Fighter 
an operationally deployable asset.

Secure infrastructure technology laboratory

    The budget request contained $61.5 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology, but included no funding 
for Secure Infrastructure Technology Laboratory (SINTEL). 
SINTEL has developed a suite of sensing technologies and 
complementary computer analysis that shows great potential to 
reliably detect hostile, underwater threats in both domestic 
and foreign ports, a critical force protection requirement for 
the Navy.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63729N for the Secure Infrastructure Technology Laboratory.

Shipboard wireless maintenance assistant

    The budget request contained $14.1 million in PE 63513N for 
shipboard system component development, but included no funding 
for the shipboard wireless maintenance assistant (SWMA).
    The committee believes that advances in information 
technology can help to dramatically improve productivity and 
reduce manning for shipboard maintenance. The committee 
understands that SWMA allows maintenance data, text, and 
associated drawings and imagery to be shared wirelessly in the 
shipboard environment, and provides real-time ``reach back'' to 
remote experts.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for PE 
63513N for SWMA prototype shipboard testing and development of 
pre-production models.

Small arms and crew served weapons shot counter

    The budget request contained $47.6 million in PE 26623M for 
Marine Corps ground combat and supporting arms systems, but 
included no funds for the test and evaluation of weapon shot 
counters for Marine Corps small arms and crew-served weapons.
    The committee understands the Marine Corps has a 
requirement to track service life and wear rates of small arms 
and crew-served weapon systems. The committee notes a 
lightweight, easily manageable weapons shot counter that could 
readily fit into the stock or grip of existing small arms and 
crew-served weapon systems would potentially address this 
requirement. The committee recognizes the additional funds 
would be used to initiate a lightweight weapons shot counter 
program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.3 million in PE 
26623M for the initiation, demonstration and evaluation of 
weapon shot counters for Marine Corps small arms and crew-
served weapon systems.

Smart valve

    The budget request contained $14.1 million in PE 63513N for 
shipboard system component development, but included no funding 
for smart valve.
    The committee understands that in a shipboard environment 
with plentiful power and robust networking, linear 
electromechanical actuator technology presents some interesting 
opportunities to eliminate high pressure hydraulic and 
pneumatic systems. The committee believes that technologies 
like smart valve can offer reduced size and weight, lower 
maintenance, and a self diagnostic capability that would warn 
of impending malfunction.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for PE 
63513N for development of smart valve technology.

Tactical electric field buoy development program

    The budget request contained $16.8 million in PE 63254N for 
anti-submarine warfare systems development, but included no 
funding for the tactical electric (E) field buoy development 
program.
    The committee supports the Navy's efforts to develop 
enhanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities using networked 
sensor systems. Countering emerging threats in the acoustically 
problematic littorals may require the exploitation of 
phenomenology that has previously received little attention. 
The tactical E-field buoy development program designs and tests 
air deployable sensors capable of detecting the electric field 
signature of a threat submarine.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for PE 
63254N to design, build and test 10 engineering development 
model E-field buoys for evaluation at sea.

Validation of prognostic and health management systems

    The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 63236N for 
warfighter sustainment advanced technology, but included no 
funds for a program to validate prognostic and health 
management systems.
    The committee understands that advanced modeling and 
simulation software has been developed for determining the 
remaining life of critical joint strike fighter engine 
components. However, the committee further understands that a 
program to certify the key models used in the software are 
required to validate prognostic and health management systems, 
and that such a program would enable engine life assessment 
modeling tools to be verified for fleet management purposes.
    Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 
million in PE 63236N for a program to validate prognostic and 
health management systems.

VH-71

    The budget request included $682.6 million in PE 64273N for 
the VH-71 helicopter program.
    The committee understands that the VH-71 will replace the 
current fleet of VH-3 and VH-60 helicopters which provide 
transportation to the President. Section 220 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) limited the expenditure of funds on VH-71 until the 
Secretary of the Navy delivered to Congress an event driven 
acquisition strategy that incorporates no more than moderate 
risk for increment two of the program. Section 220 also 
required an operational evaluation using production 
representative test vehicles. Further, section 220 directed 
that the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 
provide an evaluation of the acquisition strategy.
    The committee received the Navy's report on the new 
acquisition strategy for the VH-71 program along with comments 
from the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation on March 14, 
2006. Although some beneficial changes have been made to the 
program including the creation of a Senior Leadership Council 
(SLC), the schedule for the program remains high risk and the 
test and evaluation planned to occur prior to production of 
increment two aircraft will not include production 
representative test vehicles. Further, the DOT&E recommends the 
addition of readiness reviews prior to award of contracts for 
production of low rate initial production (LRIP) lots two and 
three. The current program plan would approve all three lots of 
LRIP at the same time. The committee directs that the Secretary 
of the Navy include the readiness reviews recommended by the 
DOT&E in the VH-71 program schedule. The committee further 
directs that these additional reviews should occur with the 
participation of the SLC, and that approval be given for LRIP 
contract award only with the consensus of all members of the 
SLC.
    The committee notes that the budget request included $39.0 
million to procure long lead materials for three LRIP aircraft 
in the increment two configuration, known as the VH-71B. The 
committee understands that the first contractor-provided test 
article for the VH-71B will not be delivered to the Navy until 
2008, and that the modification of VH-71A test articles into 
the VH-71B configuration will not start until the later half of 
fiscal year 2008 and will not be completed until the later half 
of fiscal year 2009. The committee believes that the obligation 
of funds to begin long lead procurement of materials for VH-71B 
aircraft in fiscal year 2007 is premature.
    The committee recommends $643.6 million, a decrease of 
$39.0 million in PE 64273N for the VH-71 helicopter program.

Virtual-at-sea training technologies

    The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 63236N for 
warfighter sustainment advanced technology, but included no 
funding for leveraging virtual-at-sea training (VAST) 
technologies in support of qualification and readiness training 
for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).
    The committee understands that training in a simulated 
environment can provide valuable crew experience in a cost 
effective manner, and provides in some cases the only means to 
train for certain contingencies. The committee notes that the 
Navy's ``Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for 
Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2007'' describes a future 
force structure that includes 55 LCSs, although none have been 
commissioned to date. Given the large number of ships in this 
class planned for procurement, the committee believes 
investment in training technologies is particularly prudent.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for PE 
63236N for extension of VAST technologies to support crew 
training for LCS.

Warfare protection advanced technology

    The budget request contained $18.0 million in PE 63729N for 
warfare protection advanced technology, but included no funds 
for the Naval Special Warfare Performance and Injury Prevention 
Program. The committee is aware that the Performance and Injury 
Prevention Program would implement intervention models that 
will permit Navy special operations forces to mitigate the risk 
of musculoskeletal injury and optimize physical performance.
    The committee recommends $20.5 million in PE 63729N, an 
increase of $2.5 million for the Naval Special Warfare 
Performance and Injury Prevention Program.

Wet end installation system element

    The budget request contained $58.3 million in PE 64784N for 
distributed surveillance system, but included no funding for 
the wet end installation system element (WISE).
    The committee supports the Navy's efforts to enhance anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) capability by shifting the focus from 
expensive platforms to relatively inexpensive networked 
sensors. The Navy's current program, the advanced deployable 
system, is a passive acoustic surveillance system that will be 
deployed from a littoral combat ship equipped with the ASW 
mission package. The committee believes the value of such 
systems is further enhanced by covert deployment. WISE will 
employ submarine based expendable unmanned underwater vehicles 
to install fixed sensor fields, with a goal of reducing system 
cost by 50 percent.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million for PE 
64784N for continued development of WISE and the expendable 
array installation vehicle.

Wireless maritime inspection system

    The budget request contained $817.5 million in PE 64300N 
for SC-21 total ship engineering, but included no funds for the 
wireless maritime inspection system.
    The wireless maritime inspection system will establish an 
operational capability that reduces the risk associated with 
military interception operations. The committee recognizes that 
this system will allow Navy personnel to board ships, as 
needed, to effectively inspect personnel, cargo and other items 
on the suspect ship while being connected in near real-time to 
critical Navy organizations. Specifically, it will enable 
boarding teams to transmit intelligence such as photos of crew, 
passports and evidence to the operational commander and 
national agencies in near-real time. The committee notes this 
will allow senior personnel to remotely make decisions without 
having to recall a portion of the interdiction team. This 
capability will provide improved force protection, as well as 
enable real-time correlation with other interdiction operations 
to ensure broader effectiveness.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
64300N to be used for the wireless maritime inspection system.

         Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $24.4 billion for Air Force 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $24.8 billion, an increase of 
$413.3 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


Active feedback flow control technology

    The budget request contained $112.8 million in PE 62201F 
for aerospace vehicle technologies, including $2.0 million for 
advancement of intelligent aerospace systems (AIAS).
    The committee understands that AIAS focuses on the concept 
and development of valuable simulation tools for Air Force 
engineers and scientists for assessment of proposed future Air 
Force weapons systems. AIAS incorporates active feedback flow 
control (AFFC) technology for simulation and modeling tools in 
the evaluations of unsteady aerodynamic, turbulence, thermal 
and noise studies. Currently, there are no universal, validated 
tools available for the new weapon systems development program 
designer interested in using AFFC concepts at the beginning 
stages of design. The committee also understands AFFC tools are 
highly relevant for a broad spectrum of designs and development 
such as onboard intelligence for maneuvering missiles and 
projectiles, and onboard intelligence for unmanned air 
vehicles, and micro-unmanned air vehicles utilizing 
neurobiological inspired computational processes.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 62201F for AIAS in the development of AFFC.

Advanced engine starter/generator system prototype

    The budget request contained $170.9 million in PE 62203F 
for aerospace propulsion, but included no funds for the 
development of an advanced engine starter/generator (AESG) 
system for future aircraft.
    The committee notes that existing engine starter/generator 
systems on current and future designed aircraft are physically 
heavy and expensive to procure and sustain. The AESG contains 
design and technology advancements in power-electronics and 
high-speed-machinery. Subsequently, the AESG has the potential 
to provide future aircraft with a high-powered, engine starter/
generator system that is 30 percent less in weight and 28 
percent lower in lifecycle cost.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 
million for development of an advanced engine starter/generator 
system.

Advanced optics and laser space technology

    The budget request contained $51.3 million in PE 63605F for 
advanced weapons technology, including $21.4 million for 
advanced optics and laser space technology.
    The committee believes that characterization of laser 
propagation through atmospheric turbulence and demonstration of 
advanced adaptive optical and tracking technologies are 
critical enabling technologies for applications such as high-
resolution satellite imaging, space object illumination and 
tracking, and satellite diagnostics testing. However, the 
committee is concerned by the potential applicability of this 
technology development for anti-satellite and advanced space 
weapons capabilities. Therefore, the committee directs that 
none of the funds authorized for this program element shall be 
used for development or demonstration of laser space 
technologies with anti-satellite weapons purposes.
    The committee recommends $44.8 million in PE 63605F, a 
decrease of $6.5 million for advanced optics and laser space 
technology.

Advanced spacecraft technology

    The budget request contained $68.0 million in PE 63401F for 
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for 
precision integrated navigation and position-intelligent 
networking technology (PINPOINT), small, low-cost 
reconnaissance spacecraft, or intelligent free space optical 
satellite communications nodes.
    The committee is aware that PINPOINT operates through 
cooperative navigation, which enables an array of satellites to 
form a more accurate, integrated navigation solution through 
the fusion of all global positioning satellite system 
information available within the array. With this approach, a 
satellite that cannot form a complete navigation solution on 
its own, due to poor geometry plasma effects, jamming or 
interference, can now accurately determine its position through 
interaction with other array members. The committee believes 
that this technology directly improves warfighter capabilities 
by enabling improved situational awareness and relative 
position accuracies.
    The committee recognizes that small reconnaissance 
spacecraft that cost less than $4.0 million each could fulfill 
a variety of military and intelligence applications. The 
committee believes that a program focused on integrating low-
mass, low-cost components into a single purpose imaging 
satellite, while maintaining 80 percent of the performance 
specifications of other larger imaging spacecraft currently in 
development could be of great value to the Department of 
Defense and the Intelligence Community.
    Further, the committee is aware that on-going military 
operations require dramatic increases in space communications 
bandwidth through secure communications networks. The committee 
feels that lightweight, low-cost spacecraft laser 
communications hardware technology can reduce the development 
risk of the transformation communication architecture program 
by providing the capability for low-cost, adaptive, multi-
access laser and radio frequency communications.
    The committee recommends $84.0 million in PE 63401F, an 
increase of $16.0 million, including $5.0 million for PINPOINT, 
$4.0 million for small, low-cost reconnaissance spacecraft, and 
$7.0 million for intelligent free space optical satellite 
communications nodes.

Affordable lightweight power supply development

    The budget request contained $170.9 million in PE 62203F 
for applied research in aerospace propulsion, but included no 
funds for lightweight proton exchange membrane fuel cells.
    The committee notes the need of U.S. armed forces for 
efficient and robust power sources. Fuel cells, which are 
lighter than conventional batteries or generator power 
supplies, offer a high potential for reducing vehicle fuel 
consumption, the weight of the subsistence and combat load 
carried by individual soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen in 
the field, environmental pollution, and an enemy's ability to 
detect combat vehicles. The committee further notes advances in 
technology and the potential for development of durable and 
cost-effective high temperature proton exchange membrane fuel 
cells that would address these operational requirements.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million in PE 
62203F for applied research in lightweight proton exchange 
membrane fuel cells.

B-52 internal weapons bay upgrade

    The budget request contained $71.4 million in PE 11113F for 
B-52 squadrons, but contained no funds for the military-
standard-1760 (MIL-STD-1760) integration for the B-52 internal 
weapons bay upgrade.
    The committee understands modernization and upgrade efforts 
are underway for the B-52 aircraft to enable employment of 
precision guided weapons from both the internal weapons bay and 
the external wing pylons. These upgrades will allow the 
aircraft to employ advanced precision guided weapons such as 
the joint direct attack munition, the joint air-to-surface 
stand- off missile, and the joint stand-off weapon. The 
committee understands that the MIL-STD-1760 provides a common 
interface between the weapons and the aircraft, and is used to 
transfer guidance information to the weapons located in the 
internal bay racks and on the external wing pylons.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $77.4 million in PE 
11113F, an increase of $6.0 million for accelerated integration 
of the MIL-STD-1760 into the internal weapons bay of the B-52.

B-52 stand-off jammer program

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 64429F for the 
B-52 stand-off jammer (SOJ) program. The budget request also 
terminated the B-52 SOJ program in order to fund Air Force 
transformational activities in the remaining Future Years 
Defense Program (FYDP).
    The committee notes that in PE 64429F, Congress 
appropriated $107.1 million in fiscal year 2006 for the B-52 
SOJ program. The committee notes that current Air Force 
electronic attack requirements are being fulfilled by Marine 
Corps EA-6B platforms scheduled to be completely retired in 
2012. Further, the committee understands the B-52 SOJ program 
was originally developed to fulfill future Air Force electronic 
attack requirements beginning in 2012 to mitigate the 
capability gap created by the retirement of the EA-6B.
    Consequently, the committee is deeply concerned that the 
Air Force will not have a replacement electronic attack 
capability once the Marine Corps EA-6B platform is retired, and 
strongly encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to reexamine 
the decision to cancel the B-52 SOJ program in light of this 
capability gap.

Biostatic protective clothing

    The budget request contained $1.0 million in PE 48011F for 
agile combat support, but included no funds for development of 
biostatic protective clothing.
    The committee understands that the capabilities of 
biostatic protective clothing include a thermally efficient 
wicking concept made with an extruded continuous filament yarn 
which has the potential for superior moisture management. The 
committee is aware that early biostatic protective clothing 
prototypes have been tested and found to resolve some 
shortcomings associated with clothing used by those military 
personnel currently deployed to combat theaters of operation.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $3.9 million in PE 
48011F, an increase of $2.9 million for biostatic protective 
clothing.

C-130 airlift squadrons

    The budget request contained $248.3 million in PE 41115F 
for C-130 development programs, but included no funds for 
development of the automated inspection, repair, corrosion and 
aircraft tracking (AIRCAT) system.
    The AIRCAT system develops tools for collection and 
analysis of data for the purpose of instituting a condition-
based maintenance (CBM) program on the C-130 aircraft. The 
committee understands CBM techniques are used in many aviation 
activities because they improve fleet maintenance planning and 
management, improve safety through a better awareness of flight 
worthiness, and reduce total ownership costs. The committee 
notes that Congress appropriated $2.5 million for the AIRCAT 
system for fiscal year 2006, and believes that this program 
should be continued.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $255.4 million in PE 
41115F for C-130 development programs, an increase of $7.1 
million for the AIRCAT system.

Combatant commanders' integrated command and control system

    The budget request contained $50.9 million in PE 35906F for 
the combatant commanders' integrated command and control system 
(CCIC2S).
    The committee believes that the modernization and 
integration of the command and control systems at Cheyenne 
Mountain, Colorado is critical to adequately support the North 
American Aerospace Defense Command, U.S. Northern Command, and 
U.S. Strategic Command. However, the committee is aware of 
management deficiencies in the program that are resulting in a 
significant cost overrun and an undefined delivery schedule.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to maintain essential operation and maintenance activities, and 
limit future investment to only the developmental activities 
deemed essential to national security needs. Prior to 
proceeding with further development, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) approves an acquisition approach that designates the 
program as a major automated information system. In addition, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report by March 1, 2007, to the congressional defense 
committees that includes an affordability assessment to 
demonstrate that the program's resource estimates will be 
available and realistic in terms of DOD's overall long-range 
modernization priorities and investment plans, an economic 
analysis that assesses the lifecycle costs and benefits of the 
program, and an independent estimate of program lifecycle cost.
    The committee recommends no funding in PE 35906F for 
CCIC2S, a decrease of $50.9 million.

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit program

    The budget request contained $0.2 million in PE 64740F for 
development of integrated command and control applications, but 
included no funds for the distributed mission interoperability 
toolkit (DMIT) program.
    The DMIT is a suite of software tools that enables on-
demand, trusted, interoperability among and between air mission 
command, control, communication, computer and intelligence 
(C4I) systems and mission simulator models. The committee 
understands that the DMIT program leverages best practices from 
the commercial sector including the use of open architectures, 
existing and emerging web standards, and state-of-the-art 
technologies to provide a more efficient translation of air 
mission tasks from C4I systems into a format compatible with 
mission simulator formats. The committee notes that Congress 
appropriated an increase of $5.0 million in fiscal year 2006 
for this purpose, and believes that the DMIT program should be 
continued in fiscal year 2007.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $5.2 million in PE 
64740F, an increase of $5.0 million for continuation of the 
DMIT program.

Engineering tool improvement program

    The budget request contained $106.1 million in PE 62500F 
for multi-disciplinary space technology, but included no 
funding for the engineering tool improvement program (ETIP).
    The committee notes Congress has appropriated funding for 
the ETIP since fiscal year 2003. The ETIP effort provides the 
Air Force Research Laboratory with the ability to rapidly 
assess system viability and mission suitability by performing 
design and analysis of aerospace vehicles and propulsion 
technologies during the design phase.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62500F for ETIP.

High accuracy network determination system

    The budget request contained $6.0 million in PE 63444F Maui 
space surveillance system, but included no funds for the high 
accuracy network determination system (HANDS).
    The committee believes that low cost, innovative 
technologies are needed to address critical space situational 
awareness needs and notes that HANDS research is leading to a 
networked, operationally secure, multi-sensor system, which 
could obtain highly accurate observations of space objects and 
reduce the potential for collisions of space objects by 
reducing errors in the current space-object maintenance 
catalog.
    The committee recommends $11.0 million for PE 63444F, an 
increase of $5.0 million for HANDS.

High modulus polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber

    The budget request contained $111.1 million in PE 62102F 
for materials, but included no funds for high modulus 
polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber.
    The committee notes that high modulus PAN carbon fiber 
research and development is in line with and supportive of the 
Air Force's initiatives for advanced composite parts 
development and carbon fiber sourcing. High modulus PAN carbon 
fiber is in demand by composite manufacturers for the 
production of military aircraft, as well as components of 
missiles and satellites where there is a need for material 
stiffness at a relatively low weight. Currently only one 
manufacturer of high modulus PAN carbon fiber exists and is 
located overseas. The committee urges the Department of Defense 
to secure a domestic-based manufacturer of high modulus PAN 
carbon fiber.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 62102F for the development and certification of a 
domestic-based manufacturer of high modulus PAN carbon fiber.

Human systems integration

    The budget request included $92.9 million in PE 62202F for 
human effectiveness applied research, but contained no funding 
for improved performance research integration (IMPRINT).
    The committee supports further development of IMPRINT in 
support of the airman performance integration (AIRPRINT) 
program and in conjunction with other Department of Defense 
human systems integration efforts.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 62202F for IMPRINT to further develop human 
systems integration modeling throughout the Department.

Interactive avionics roadmap

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 72239F for 
avionics component improvement programs, and other program 
elements included no funds for development of the interactive 
avionics roadmap.
    The interactive avionics roadmap is a tool that provides 
program managers with real-time, internet web-based data that 
is used to continually monitor and forecast program 
requirements. The interactive avionics roadmap would enable 
program managers to monitor changes as they occur and implement 
mitigation alternatives as required on a real-time basis. The 
committee understands that existing roadmap documents are 
heavily manpower dependent, and are subject to degradation as 
changes in program requirements are encountered; and the 
committee believes that the use of interactive avionics 
roadmaps would automate data feeds, reduce costs for avionics 
systems, and enhance the ability of program managers to more 
proactively manage and prioritize budgets based on more up-to-
date system requirements.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $2.0 million in PE 
72239F, an increase of $2.0 million for development of the 
interactive avionics roadmap.

Joint advanced global strike demonstration

    The budget request contained $14.7 million in PE 65860F for 
the Rocket Systems Launch program, but included no funds for 
prompt global strike development.
    The committee notes that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review called for improved capability for prompt, conventional 
global strike. The committee is aware that U.S. Strategic 
Command has approved the concept of a joint advanced global 
strike (JAGS) demonstration that would use ballistic missile 
boosters currently in the inventory, as vehicles for a new 
land-based prompt global strike capability. The committee notes 
that the Rocket Systems Launch program can use its excess 
ballistic missile assets to develop a land-based prompt 
conventional global strike capability.
    The committee recommends $26.7 million in PE 65860F, an 
increase of $12.0 million for the JAGS demonstration program.

Joint strike fighter development

    The budget request contained $2.0 billion in PE 64800F for 
the Department of the Air Force's development of the joint 
strike fighter (JSF), also known as the F-35, but included no 
funds for research and development of a second aircraft tire 
source for the JSF and other existing combat aircraft, or for 
development of an alternate JSF engine. The committee notes 
that the budget request also includes $2.0 billion in PE 64800N 
for the Department of the Navy's development of JSF.
    The committee understands that aircraft tires are a high-
demand, critical component needed to sustain high military 
operational tempos, and believes that a second JSF tire 
sourceshould be established in the United States to ensure that a 
reliable and sustainable source of aircraft tires are available to meet 
requirements for the JSF and other aircraft. Consequently, the 
committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for research and 
development of a second tire source for the JSF and other existing 
combat aircraft. The committee expects that these funds will be used 
for the development of advanced reinforced materials and new materials 
for combat aircraft tires.
    The JSF alternate engine program is developing the F136 
engine which would provide an alternative to the currently-
planned F135 engine. In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Report for 
Fiscal Year 2006, the committee expressed its belief that a 
two-engine source for the single-engine JSF would be the most 
cost effective and operationally effective engine solution 
during the JSF's service life, and is disappointed that the 
budget request did not include funds for development of an 
alternate JSF engine beyond fiscal year 2006. During a hearing 
held by the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on 
March 16, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics testified, ``While the benefits of a 
second supplier are undeniable, our judgment is that those 
benefits are not worth the substantial financial cost of a 
second supplier.'' To confirm those judgments, the committee 
requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
witness at the hearing review and report on the Department of 
Defense's analysis that resulted in the judgment to terminate 
the JSF alternate engine program. On April 12, 2006, the GAO 
witness reported to the committee that the ``Department of 
Defense's quantitative analysis focuses only on potential 
savings for engine acquisition and does not appear to fully 
examine potential savings that may be possible when competition 
exists for providing support for maintenance and operations 
over the lifecycle of the engine.'' The committee concurs with 
GAO's observation, and believes that the JSF alternate engine 
program should continue until the Department of Defense fully 
analyzes potential costs and savings resulting from competition 
over the JSF engine's lifecycle.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $408.0 
million to continue the JSF alternate engine program for fiscal 
year 2007. Additionally, the committee recommends a provision 
(section 211) that would require that the Department of the 
Navy and the Department of the Air Force obligate not less than 
$408.0 million, of the funds authorized to be appropriated for 
the system development and demonstration program for the Joint 
Strike Fighter, for continued development of an alternate 
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The committee also 
recommends a provision (section 215) that would require both 
the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of 
Defense Cost Analysis Improvement Group, and the Comptroller 
General to conduct independent analyses of the JSF alternate 
engine program and provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees by March 15, 2007.
    In total, the committee recommends $2.4 billion in PE 
64800F for the Department of the Air Force's portion of JSF 
development, an increase of $409.5 million.

KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization program

    The budget request contained $203.9 million in PE 41221F 
for the KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft recapitalization 
program (KC-X).
    The committee fully supports recapitalization of the KC-135 
aerial refueling fleet. The committee notes that a system 
development and design (SDD) contract would not likely be 
awarded until the end of fiscal year 2007, in accordance with 
the estimated acquisition schedule of the Air Force. Further, 
Congress appropriated $100.0 million in fiscal year 2005 for 
the Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund, and $97.8 million in 
fiscal year 2006 for the KC-X program, of which only $10.2 
million has been obligated thus far. The committee understands 
that approximately $70.0 million is required to execute an SDD 
contract in fiscal year 2007. The committee believes the 
unobligated balance of $187.6 million should be sufficient to 
support funding requirements for the KC-X program in fiscal 
year 2007.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $152.4 million in PE 
41221F, a decrease of $51.5 million for the KC-X program.

Large aircraft countermeasures system for AC-130U aircraft

    The budget request contained $34.9 million in PE 41134F for 
development and integration of the large aircraft 
countermeasures (LAIRCM) system on various airlift and tanker 
aircraft, but included no funds to integrate the LAIRCM system 
on the AC-130U aircraft.
    The AC-130U is a heavily-armed aircraft which uses side-
firing weapons integrated with sensor, navigation, and fire 
control systems to provide precise firepower for close air 
support, air interdiction and force protection missions. The 
LAIRCM system, which is planned for integration on various 
airlift and tanker aircraft, provides a capability to detect, 
track, jam and counter incoming surface-to-air, infra-red 
guided missiles. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief 
of Staff has included the integration of the LAIRCM system on 
the Air Force Special Operations Command's (AFSOC) HC-130 and 
MC-130 aircraft among his top unfunded priorities for fiscal 
year 2007, and believes that the LAIRCM system should be 
integrated into AFSOC's AC-130U fleet.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $49.9 million in PE 
41134F, an increase of $15.0 million to integrate the LAIRCM 
system on the AC-130U aircraft.

Laser peening fatigue life extension

    The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 78011F for 
various manufacturing technology programs, but included no 
funds for testing, demonstration, and evaluation of laser 
peening technology for military aircraft landing gear.
    The committee understands that the laser peening process 
has the potential to strengthen metals thereby extending the 
life and improving the fatigue strength, while also providing 
increased resistance to corrosion and cracking. The committee 
further understands that the laser peening process is used in 
the commercial aviation industry and has shown promise in 
improving the fatigue strength of commercial aircraft landing 
gear. Based on commercial experience, the committee believes 
that the laser peening process also has the potential to 
improve fatigue strength for military landing gear systems.
    Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 78011F for the testing, demonstration and 
evaluation of laser peening technology as a metal fatigue 
prevention tool to extend the life of military aircraft landing 
gear.

Low emission hybrid electric engine propulsion

    The budget request contained $10.6 million in PE 78611F for 
support systems development, but included no funds for the 
testing of low emission and fuel efficient hybrid electric 
engine propulsion systems for Air Force heavy tactical wheeled 
vehicles such as aviation refueling trucks.
    The committee is aware that existing Air Force aviation 
refueling trucks operate over short distances in a manner that 
causes high fuel use, high emissions and decreased engine life. 
The committee notes that a first generation hybrid electric 
vehicle has been delivered to the Air Force for testing and 
understands this technology would potentially deliver a better 
than 40 percent improvement in fuel efficiency.
    The committee recommends $13.6 million in PE 78611F, an 
increase of $3.0 million for the continued refinement in system 
development and demonstration of low emission and fuel 
efficient hybrid electric engine propulsion for use by aviation 
refueling trucks.

Major test and evaluation investment

    The budget request contained $58.5 million in PE 64759F for 
major test and evaluation investment, but included limited 
funds for acquisition of hardware and software for data 
management and archiving systems for the effective collection, 
management, distribution, and long-term availability of flight 
test data.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE 
64759F for an enterprise test data management system at the Air 
Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California, 
and an additional increase of $3.0 million in PE 64759F for 
hardware and software to improve the flight test ground 
infrastructure and tools at the Air Armament Center, Eglin Air 
Force Base, Florida.

Materials

    The budget request contained $111.1 million in PE 62102F 
for materials applied research, but included no funds for 
research for electronic type-specific buckytubes.
    The committee recognizes the national need for electronic 
type-specific buckytubes for military, intelligence, and 
homeland security applications. Therefore, the committee 
believes there is a need to ensure the continual improvements 
of capabilities in these areas.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.4 million in PE 
62102F for development of electronic type-specific buckytubes.

Measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) visualization tools 
        program

    The budget request contained $119.2 million in PE 62702F 
for command, control and communications, but included no funds 
for the measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) 
visualization tools program.
    The committee notes that the (MASINT) visualization tools 
program would integrate measurement and signature intelligence 
into existing and future information processing architectures 
so that information could be managed and displayed in real-time 
without processing delays.
    The committee recommends $125.2 million in PE 62702F, an 
increase of $6.0 million for the accelerated development of the 
MASINT visualization tools program.

Metals affordability initiative

    The budget request included $48.9 million in PE 63112F for 
advanced materials for weapon systems.
    The committee supports the continued government-industry 
collaboration provided through the Metals Affordability 
Initiative, providing significant improvements in the 
manufacturing of specialty metals for aerospace applications 
for the private and government sectors of the aerospace 
industry.
    The committee recommends an additional $11.3 million in PE 
63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative.

Nanocrystalline diamond coatings

    The budget request included $111.1 million in PE 62102F for 
materials applied research and $64.7 million in PE 63003A for 
aviation advanced technology, but included no funds for 
nanocrystalline diamond coatings.
    The committee understands that a nanocrystalline diamond 
coating has been developed with characteristics that offer 
increased durability, transparency, and protective 
characteristics to include anti-icing and abrasion protection 
for aircraft surfaces.
    The committee recommends an additional $2.9 million in PE 
62102F and $2.9 million in PE 63003A for development and 
application of nanocrystalline coatings on radome and high wear 
aircraft components for testing.

Operationally responsive space

    The budget request contained $35.6 million in PE 64857F for 
operationally responsive space.
    The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense 
recently began developing an affordable, rapid reaction 
combination of spacelift, launch control, and satellites in an 
effort to provide responsive tactical satellite capabilities to 
the warfighter. The committee commends this effort and believes 
that continued pursuit of low-cost, responsive tactical 
capabilities can fill a niche capability requested by the 
warfighter and lead to long-term benefits by advancing 
technology, enhancing the skills of the space cadre, and 
broadening the space industrial base.
    The committee recommends $55.6 million in PE 64857F, an 
increase of $20.0 million for operationally responsive space.

Radio frequency identification tag rapid adoption initiative, phase 2

    The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 78011F for 
industrial preparedness, but contained no funding for the 
Frequency Identification Tag Rapid Adoption Initiative, Phase 
2.
    The committee believes that great efficiencies can be 
gained, and more importantly, capability delivered rapidly to 
the front line troops, through a systemic adoption of radio 
frequency identification tagging within the Department of 
Defense's logistics enterprise. Given the disparate logistics 
systems throughout the Department, no single entity is focused 
on the system wide adoption of this promising technology.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
78011F for the Radio Frequency Identification Tag Rapid 
Adoption Initiative, Phase 2.

Small diameter bomb

    The budget request included $224.2 million in PE 64240F for 
the B-2 advanced technology bomber, but contained no funds for 
the integration of the small diameter bomb.
    The committee recognizes the unique attributes of the B-2 
bomber as a stealthy, long-range delivery platform and supports 
further development of the fleet as a means to address the 
evolving nature of potential threats.
    The committee recognizes the potential benefit of 
maintaining a long-range delivery system with the capacity to 
carry heavy and medium, as well as relatively lightweight 
munitions. The committee is encouraged with the potential 
capabilities of the 250-pound small diameter bomb and intrigued 
with the possibility of coupling this technology with the B-2 
program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.0 
million in PE 64240F to integrate the small diameter bombs 
aboard the B-2 bomber.

Space-based radar

    The budget request contained $266.4 million in PE 63858F 
for space-based radar.
    The committee is aware that the Executive Agent for Space 
of the Department of Defense is taking steps to restructure the 
space-based radar program in order to address concerns about 
the affordability of space-based radar, and is evaluating the 
potential to develop on-orbit demonstration satellites to 
validate technology maturity and costs. The committee commends 
the Department for this effort and encourages continued 
progress towards an effective and affordable space radar 
capability. However, the committee believes that a 171 percent 
increase over fiscal year 2006 funded level is unwarranted as 
the space radar program does not have a finalized development 
approach or a concept of operations.
    The committee recommends $236.4 million in PE 63858F, a 
decrease of $30.0 million for space-based radar.

Space control test capabilities

    The budget request contained $47.3 million in PE 64421F for 
counterspace systems, but contained no funds for space control 
test capabilities (SCTC).
    The committee is aware that the integration of new space 
control systems and requirements into the existing command and 
control architecture requires significant objective analysis in 
order to optimize systems effectiveness and prevent degradation 
or failure of the command and control infrastructure. The 
committee believes that SCTC provides a method of assessing the 
effects of loading data from newly developed systems into the 
existing command and control infrastructure, thereby providing 
a test capability prior to development of system requirements.
    The committee recommends $52.3 million in PE 64421F, an 
increase of $5.0 million for space control test capabilities.

Space technology

    The budget request contained $85.6 million in PE 62601F for 
space technology, but contained no funds for elastic memory 
composites or for deployable structures for space.
    The committee notes space-qualified elastic memory 
composite materials can significantly improve the reliability 
of on-orbit spacecraft deployment mechanisms and may enable 
composite tank structures for spacecraft applications.
    The committee believes that continued improvement in 
spacecraft deployment systems is necessary to achieve the large 
apertures needed to support enhanced imaging and improved space 
situational awareness requirements.
    The committee recommends $91.6 million for PE 62601F, an 
increase of $6.0 million, to include $3.0 million for elastic 
memory composites and $3.0 million for deployable space 
structures.

Tactical automated security system advanced communications module

    The budget request contained $0.2 million in PE 63287F for 
physical security equipment, but included no funds for the 
tactical automated security system (TASS) advanced 
communications module.
    TASS systems are widely deployed by the U.S. Air Force and 
other services supporting current operations and provide both 
physical security and force protection. The committee is aware 
the current communications element of TASS has limited 
bandwidth capability and is subject to obsolescence due to age.
    The committee recommends $3.2 million in PE 63287F, an 
increase of $3.0 million to complete the development of the 
TASS advanced communications module.

Transformational satellite communications system

    The budget request contained $867.1 million in PE 63845F 
for the transformational satellite communications systems 
(TSAT).
    The committee is aware that the TSAT program has been 
restructured into a block-build approach that will reduce the 
complexity and capacity of the first block of satellites in an 
effort to reduce development and integration risk and increase 
schedule confidence. While the committee believes this 
restructuring, along with budgeting TSAT to 80/20 cost 
confidence, is appropriate based on historical performance of 
the TSAT program, the committee is concerned that the two-fold 
increase in the TSAT budget can not be prudently executed.
    The committee recommends $787.1 million in PE 63845F, a 
decrease of $80.0 million for TSAT.

Winglets for in-service aircraft

    The committee commends the Air Force in its efforts to 
increase aircraft fuel efficiency and decrease fuel 
consumption. The committee notes that initiatives such as re-
engining aircraft, modifying in-flight profiles, and revising 
aircraft ground operations contribute to decreased fuel 
consumption and increased life-cycle savings.
    The committee is aware that winglet technology exists for 
aircraft to increase fuel efficiency, improve take-off 
performance, increase cruise altitudes, and increase payload 
and range capability. The committee notes that winglets are 
currently used on commercial aircraft and result in a five to 
seven percent increase in fuel efficiency. On September 16, 
1981, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
released the KC-135 Winglet Program Review on the incorporation 
of winglets for KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft. However, the 
Air Force concluded that the cost of adding winglets to the KC-
135 did not provide sufficient payback in fuel savings or 
increased range to justify modification. Although the Air Force 
did conclude that modifying aircraft with winglets could 
increase fuel efficiency, the Air Force determined thatre-
engining the KC-135 aircraft produced a greater return on investment. 
The committee believes that incorporating winglets on military aircraft 
could increase fuel efficiency on certain platforms and that the Air 
Force should reexamine incorporating this technology onto its 
platforms.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2007, examining the feasibility of 
modifying Air Force aircraft with winglets. The report shall 
include a cost comparison analysis of the cost of winglet 
modification compared to the return on investment realized over 
time for each airlift, aerial refueling, and intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft in the Air Force 
inventory; the market price of aviation fuel at which 
incorporating winglets would be beneficial for each Air Force 
platform; all positive and negative impacts to aircraft 
maintenance and flight operations; and investment strategies 
the Air Force could implement with commercial partners to 
minimize Air Force capital investment and maximize investment 
return.

        Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $20.8 billion for Defense-wide 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $20.8 billion, a decrease of $46.9 
million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


Accelerated intelligence analyst education and training

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 33140G within 
the information systems security program for intelligence 
analyst education and training.
    The committee is aware that the defense intelligence 
community needs a new generation of intelligence analysts due 
to the emergence of new missions and the retirement of older 
analysts. The committee further understands that there are very 
few colleges and universities that provide organized degree 
programs that can lead to intelligence analyst certification in 
preparation for subsequent entry into the defense intelligence 
analyst career field. The lack of such programs is compounded 
by the lengthy security clearance process, making it more 
challenging to develop a qualified analyst pool.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
33140G for the National Security Agency to establish a process 
to identify those college and university curriculums that may 
lead to intelligence analyst certification. The committee also 
recommends this funding be used to identify those security 
clearance eligible students enrolled in such programs who may 
also be interested in pursuing a career as an intelligence 
analyst.

Advanced data encryption technology

    The budget request contained $404.3 million in PE 33140G 
for the information systems security program, but included no 
funding for advanced data encryption technology.
    The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
increased emphasis on information assurance programs in the 
budget request, but believes that more should be done to 
address future cyber security threats. The committee is 
concerned that the proliferation of super computers around the 
globe renders DOD systems vulnerable to cyber attack, and 
believes that the Department should pursue the development and 
deployment of polymorphic encryption and decryption technology 
to provide for more secure computer and data systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
33140G for the development of the polymorphic encryption and 
detection protocol.

Advanced SEAL Delivery System

    The budget request contained $32.5 million in PE 1160426BB 
for advanced SEAL delivery systems development, but included no 
funds for a new design competition.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
recently cancelled the advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS) due 
to its performance and reliability to date. The committee 
believes a new design competition will ensure that the most 
current technologies are incorporated into future ASDS designs 
and will provide valuable information for future decisions 
regarding the ASDS program.
    The committee recommends $42.5 million in PE 1160426BB for 
advanced SEAL delivery systems development, an increase of 
$10.0 million for a new design competition.

Advanced surface radar technologies

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 63720S for 
advanced surface radar technologies (ASuRT).
    The ASuRT program will focus on the development and 
adaptation of electronic components for application in the 
Navy's next-generation surface ship radar systems. The 
committee notes that future theater air and missile defense 
(TAMD) radar systems for next- generation surface ships must be 
modular and scalable, have a designed-in growth path for 
technology insertion upgrades, and must include major 
improvements over current radar systems in power, sensitivity 
and cost.
    To support these requirements, the committee recommends an 
increase of $8.0 million in PE 63720S and encourages the 
Defense Microelectronics Activity organization to focus on the 
development of lower cost, modular and open architecture radar 
components for use in future TAMD radar systems.

Advanced tactical laser program

    The budget request contained $80.4 million in PE 1160402BB 
for special operations advanced technology development, 
including $45.0 million for the advanced tactical laser 
advanced concept technology demonstration (ATL ACTD).
    The committee has previously expressed concern with the ATL 
ACTD program but recognizes that funding in the fiscal year 
2007 budget allows a full test of the integrated system and 
completion of the ACTD.
    Therefore, the committee recommends that no change be made 
to the budget request of $45.0 million for the completion of 
the ATL ACTD. The committee makes it clear that this funding 
completes the ATL ACTD and that no further funding will be 
provided past fiscal year 2007.

Ballistic missile defense

    The budget request contained $9.3 billion for the ballistic 
missile defense programs of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
    The committee supports the more cautious, measured approach 
to missile defense testing arising out of the Independent 
Review Team recommendations and standup of the Mission 
Readiness Task Force in 2005. While the committee understands 
that the spiral development strategy employed by the Department 
of Defense (DOD) for ballistic missile defense (BMD) is 
appropriate to the research and development nature of the BMD 
program elements, the committee also notes that rigorous 
testing that leads to fielding of operational systems should 
take priority over future block research and development 
efforts.
    A March 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 
titled, ``Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial Capability but 
Falls Short of Original Goals,'' is critical of several 
fundamental management processes within the MDA, and cites 
costs overruns at $458.0 million in fiscal year 2005, with 
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) accounting for $365.0 
million of this overrun, as well as a failure to meet program 
goals for many program elements. The report states that while 
both the Airborne Laser (ABL) and the Kinetic Energy 
Interceptor (KEI) programs follow a knowledge-based strategy, 
the GMD program has not. The GMD program is permitted by the 
Department to concurrently mature technology, complete design 
activities, and produce and field assets before end-to-end 
testing of the GMD system. The GAOreport finds that the failure 
to require this knowledge-based strategy of the GMD program has 
resulted in poor quality control, cost overruns, and inability to 
achieve performance goals.
    The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense 
to implement a knowledge-based acquisition strategy for all 
Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) program elements, which 
the committee understands is consistent with the DOD's 
acquisition regulations. The committee agrees with GAO's 
findings that BMDS program elements would benefit from the more 
detailed knowledge-based review conducted by other DOD 
acquisition programs.
    The committee also agrees with certain aspects of GAO's 
report, which questions whether MDA's current two-year block 
strategy is compatible with the knowledge-based development 
strategy. While stopping short of directing the Department to 
restructure the two-year block organization of BMDS elements, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
detailed review of the knowledge-based strategy in the context 
of the existing two-year block organization of BMDS elements, 
and report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2007, the findings and recommendations of this review. This 
report shall specifically assess whether there are changes that 
need to be made to the two-year block organization to more 
appropriately reflect wider application of knowledge-based 
strategies as has been utilized in the restructuring of the ABL 
and KEI programs.
    The committee recommends a reallocation of the request to 
focus on testing and fielding of near-term capability ballistic 
missile defense elements while deferring more long-term 
efforts.
    The committee recommends $9.1 billion, a decrease of $183.5 
million for BMD programs of the Missile Defense Agency.
            Aegis ballistic missile defense
    The budget request contained $1.0 billion in PE 63892C for 
Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD).
    The committee is encouraged by the Aegis BMD program 
performance and overall cost/schedule performance. The 
committee understands that budget constraints have reduced 
planned SM-3 interceptor procurement, thereby delaying SM-3 
interceptor deployment to Aegis BMD platforms.
    The committee recommends $1.1 billion in PE 63892C for 
Aegis BMD, an increase of $40.0 million, to include: $10.0 
million for continued S-band advanced radar algorithm work for 
missile defense applications, $10.0 million for Aegis open 
architecture program acceleration, and $20.0 million to 
increase the SM-3 production rate from two per month to four 
per month.
            Boost defense segment
    The budget request contained $631.6 million in PE 63883C 
for boost phase defense.
    The committee notes that the Airborne Laser (ABL) program 
achieved several significant milestones in 2005, including the 
successful System Integration Laboratory laser long run 
performance test and is scheduled to conduct a lethal 
demonstration in calendar year 2008. While the ABL program 
still faces risks associated with cutting-edge technology, the 
committee believes that the potential benefits to national 
security of a successful lethal demonstration warrant continued 
program support. The committee notes with approval the 
knowledge point-based foundation for the ABL program.
    The committee recommends $631.6 million for PE 63883C, the 
amount of the budget request.
            Core
    The budget request contained $473.1 million in PE 63890C 
for ballistic missile defense systems (BMDS) core.
    The committee is concerned with the results of a March 2006 
Department of Defense Inspector General report finding 
weaknesses in the Missile Defense Agency's systems engineering 
plans and processes. The committee is particularly concerned 
with the report's finding that the Aegis missile defense 
system, an element of the BMDS that has achieved success in 
actual intercept tests and that is being fielded and deployed 
now, lacks an approved systems engineering plan. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007, stating 
the specific deficiencies in the Aegis systems engineering plan 
and the required corrective action.
    The committee recommends $483.1 million in PE 63890C, an 
increase of $10.0 million for additional support for the Aegis 
missile defense system information assurance and systems 
engineering integration efforts.
            Midcourse defense segment
    The budget request contained $2.9 billion in PE 63882C for 
ballistic missile defense (BMD) midcourse defense segment.
    The committee supports the restructured Ground-Based 
Midcourse Defense (GMD) testing program following the 
recommendations of the Independent Review Team and the new 
charter from the Mission Readiness Task Force. As in previous 
years, the committee continues to urge the Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency to focus on robust testing of near-term 
block capabilities even where that means deferring work on 
future blocks. As noted above, the committee shares the 
concerns of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in their 
March 2006 report, ``Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial 
Capability but Falls Short of Original Goals,'' that the rush 
to deploy GMD capabilities while concurrently developing future 
blocks has negatively impacted the program. In order to sustain 
the current fielded system, the committee recommends an 
increase of $20.0 million to support concurrent test and 
operations of the existing block 2004/2006 capability.
    The committee notes that the budget request contained 
$354.9 million for block 2008 development, including the 
development and testing of new and evolving BMD systems 
technologies. The budget request specifically referenced Block 
2008 efforts that will include enhanced exo-atmospheric kill 
vehicle (EKV) and sea-based X-band radar capabilities, and 
additional GMD fire control capabilities and countermeasures 
mitigation. While the committee understands that investing in 
future capabilities is integral to a spiral development 
program, the committee also believes it is premature to spend 
funds on future technology development when the initial block 
2004/2006 capability is yet to be tested in a successful end-
to-end flight intercept test. While the committee recommends 
authorization of the requested $354.9 million for GMD Block 
2008 development, the committee also withholds $200.0 million 
of the request until 30 days after receiving certification from 
the Secretary of Defense that the planned FTG-04 and FTG-05 
intercept tests referenced in the March 17, 2006, GMD corrected 
testing schedule forwarded to the committee have met their test 
objectives. In the event that these tests objectives are not 
met, the committee directs the Secretary to report to the 
congressional defense committees within 30 days of the 
completion of these intercept tests as to whether the remaining 
block 2008 funds should be reallocated for additional testing 
of the block 2004/2006 configuration.
    The committee notes that the budget request contained 
$118.9 million for block 2010, including $55.8 million for the 
third site in Europe, and $63.1 million for long-lead items for 
European site interceptors. The committee believes it is 
premature to invest in the third site until the existing block 
2004/2006 GMD configuration successfully completes integrated 
end-to-end testing. Accordingly, the committee authorizes no 
funds for the third site. With respect to long-lead procurement 
of third site interceptors, the committee authorizes $63.1 
million, the amount of the request, to initiate long-lead 
procurement for interceptors 41-50 understanding that these 
interceptors could be available for use as assets at either the 
Fort Greeley, Alaska, or Vandenberg, California GMD sites.
    The committee is concerned with reports of GMD costs 
overruns, $365.0 million was reported by the GAO in the March 
2006 report, as well as with problems GAO noted with the EKV. 
The committee urges the Department of Defense to swiftly 
address these issues with contractor performance.
    The committee recommends $2.8 billion in PE 63882C, a 
decrease of $35.8 million for the midcourse defense segment.
            Multiple kill vehicle
    The budget request contained $165.0 million in PE 63894C 
for the Multiple Kill Vehicle program.
    The committee notes that the request is triple the amount 
of funding in fiscal year 2006 and is for a program that would 
support the ballistic missile defense system program no earlier 
than 2010. The committee believes the amount of the request to 
be excessive for a program that is oriented for block 2010 
prior to successful demonstration of the Exo-atmospheric Kill 
Vehicle technology resident in the block 2004/2006 Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense configurations.
    The committee recommends $100.0 million, a decrease of 
$65.0 million in PE 63894C for the Multiple Kill Vehicle 
program, and encourages the Department of Defense to focus on 
risk reduction for critical technologies.
            System interceptor
    The budget request contained $405.5 million in PE 63886C 
for system interceptor.
    The committee notes that in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), 
the conferees stated that the Department of Defense had 
designated the Airborne Laser (ABL) program as the primary 
boost phase defense and that the system interceptor, or Kinetic 
Energy Interceptor (KEI) program, represented a risk-mitigation 
strategy should ABL fail to perform as expected. The conferees 
directed that fiscal year 2006 funding for the program be 
focused on reducing high-technology challenges. The committee 
understands that future funding profiles have resulted in 
shifting the system interceptor from a 2012 to 2014 capability 
and that the Department is also exploring use of the 
interceptor in midcourse defense scenarios.
    The committee is concerned with the affordability of 
pursuing both the ABL and KEI programs in parallel through the 
projected 2008 knowledge point demonstrations. Given that ABL 
is the primary boost phase defense program and that the KEI 
capability is not scheduled to be fielded until the 2014 time-
frame, the committee believes that the KEI program should 
focuson only those critical technology efforts that support the 2008 
booster demonstration. Any long-term efforts not directly associated 
with the 2008 booster tests should be deferred until a decision is made 
on the future of both the ABL and KEI programs.
    The committee recommends $305.5 million in PE 63886C, a 
decrease of $100.0 million for the system interceptor program, 
and directs that the KEI program focus its priority on the 2008 
booster demonstration.
            Technology
    The budget request contained $206.7 million in PE 63175C 
for ballistic missile defense (BMD) technology.
    The committee notes that the BMD technology request 
includes $40.7 million for the High Altitude Airship (HAA); 
however, the HAA program did not meet its weight or advanced 
concept technology demonstration criteria last year. The 
committee also notes that the request states that the benefit 
to the ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) is for potential 
use as a sensor and communications and/or weapons platform 
without any greater connection to a specific BMDS element. The 
committee does not view the HAA program as an essential element 
of the BMDS system.
    The committee recommends no funding for the HAA program.
    The committee provides an additional $8.0 million in PE 
63175C for the Net-Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) to 
continue the NCADE risk-mitigation program that commenced in 
fiscal year 2006.
    The committee recommends $173.9 million in PE 63175C for 
BMD technology, a decrease of $32.7 million.

Biological warfare defense

    The budget request contained $112.2 million in PE 62383E 
for biological warfare defense applied research, but included 
no funds for the development of asymmetrical protocols to 
enhance biological defense capabilities.
    The committee notes that there are a number of biological 
agents that could, with the appropriate development and 
weaponization, be used in biological warfare and terrorist 
attack. Yet, developing specific protections against all 
possible biological agents is not feasible. The cost of 
developing one new medicine is currently estimated at $800.0 
million and the average development time is 10 to 15 years. As 
a result, the committee believes there is a need for 
therapeutics that would provide broad spectrum protection 
against a range of possible biological agents, necessitating 
research in approaches for enhancing individual non-specific 
immunities and blocking pathogens to a degree commensurate with 
the biological warfare threat.
    The committee recommends $124.2 million in PE 62383E for 
biological warfare defense, an increase of $12.0 million for 
asymmetrical protocols for biological defense enhancement.

Business transformation agency

    The budget request contained $140.2 million in PE 65020BTA 
for the research and development activities of the Business 
Transformation Agency (BTA).
    The committee supports the mission of the agency, but 
believes that a new agency such as BTA will not be able to 
effectively execute this funding.
    The committee recommends $190.2 million in PE 65020BTA, a 
decrease of $50.0 million for the Business Transformation 
Agency.

Chemical-biological collective protective shelters

    The budget request included $280.4 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but 
contained no funds for low-cost collective protection shelters.
    The committee continues to support efforts to improve 
collective protection against chemical and biological agents.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 62384BP for low-cost collective protection 
shelters.

Chemical and biological defense program

    The committee recommends continuation of the chemical and 
biological basic research, applied research, and advanced 
technology development initiatives established in the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
(Public Law 108-375). These initiatives would provide 
opportunities for emerging technologies and concepts to compete 
for funding on the basis of technical merit and on the 
contribution that such technologies could make to the chemical 
and biological defense capabilities of the armed forces and to 
homeland defense.
    The committee also notes that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review recommended an investment of more than $1.5 billion over 
the next five years to develop broad-spectrum medical 
countermeasures against advanced bio-terror threats, referred 
to as the Transformational Medical Technology Initiative 
(TMTI). This is an ambitious program, for which initial efforts 
began in late fiscal year 2006. While the committee supports 
both TMTI and the concept of broad-spectrum medical 
countermeasures, the committee is concerned that the supporting 
technologies identified in fiscal year 2006 will not be 
sufficiently mature in fiscal year 2007 to execute the funding 
proposed in the President's request for related applied 
research and advanced technology development.
            Advanced technology development
    The budget request contained $207.1 million in PE 63384BP 
for chemical and biological warfare defense advanced technology 
development.
    The committee recommends that the technologies to be 
considered for funding under the chemical and biological 
advanced technology development initiative, would include, but 
would not be limited to the following:
          (1) Antioxidant micronutrient therapeutic 
        countermeasures for chemical agents; and
          (2) Advanced technologies for biological and chemical 
        agent detection sensor systems.
    The committee recommends $197.1 million in PE 63384BP for 
chemical and biological defense, an increase of $10.0 million 
for the chemical and biological advanced technology development 
initiative and a decrease of $20.0 million for the 
Transformational Medical Technology Initiative.
            Applied research
    The budget request contained $280.4 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological warfare defense applied research.
    The committee recommends that the technologies to be 
considered for funding under the chemical and biological 
applied research initiative, would include, but would not be 
limited to the following:
          (1) Novel vaccine/therapeutic delivery means, 
        particularly for recombinant protein vaccines;
          (2) Multipurpose biodefense immunoarrays and 
        diagnostic tools;
          (3) Self-decontaminating polymer-based coatings for 
        fabrics and other substrates; and
          (4) Novel prophylaxis/therapeutics effective against 
        biological warfare agents.
    The committee recommends an increase in PE 62384BP of $20.0 
million for the chemical and biological applied research 
initiative and a decrease of $30.0 million in PE 62384BP for 
the Transformational Medical Technology Initiative.
            Basic research
    The budget request contained $99.2 million in PE 61384BP 
for chemical and biological warfare defense basic research.
    The committee recommends that the technologies to be 
considered for funding under the chemical and biological basic 
research initiative, would include, but would not be limited to 
the following:
          (1) Mismatch repair technology for the development of 
        human antibodies for prophylactic and therapeutic 
        treatments; and
          (2) Superstructural particle evaluation and 
        characterization with targeted reaction analysis of 
        emerging prophylactics for chemical and biological 
        agent protection.
    The committee recommends $109.2 million in PE 61384BP for 
chemical and biological defense, an increase of $10.0 million 
for the chemical and biological basic research initiative.

Combating terrorism technology support

    The budget request contained $65.8 million in PE 63122D8Z 
for combating terrorism technology support, but included no 
funds for additional prototypes of technologies for which the 
Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) and its international 
partners have previously invested.
    The committee recommends TSWG support the development of a 
limited number of additional prototypes of the following 
systems for more rapid military utility evaluation: (1) SHIELD, 
(2) COLD FIRE, (3) Wall Street, and (4) Muzzle Flash Detection 
System.
    The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE 
63122D8Z for cooperative research, development, and 
prototyping.

Generic logistics research and development technology demonstrations

    The budget request contained $23.4 million in PE 63712S for 
generic logistics research and development technology 
demonstrations, but included no funds for the expansion of the 
Connectory program for rapid identification of technology 
sources for the Department of Defense (DOD), for the emerging 
critical interconnection technology program, or for vacuum-
aided mobility packing technology.
    The committee notes that the Department needs access to the 
best available technologies from all sources, especially small 
and medium size companies not normally accessed by the defense 
acquisition process. The committee encourages the Defense 
Logistics Agency to:
          (1) Expand Connectory profiles to include detailed 
        sources for high-priority DOD required products and 
        services;
          (2) Collaborate with DOD agencies and other 
        government organizations having databases of technology 
        products in order to test the feasibility of linking 
        the Connectory to these other data sources; and
          (3) Explore ways to allow small companies to obtain 
        first-time business with the Department using the 
        Connectory program.
    The committee also notes that printed circuit boards are 
fundamental components of military navigation, guidance and 
control, electronic warfare, missile, and surveillance and 
communications equipment. Printed circuit boards for military 
systems have unique design requirements for high performance, 
high reliability, and the ability to operate under extreme 
environmental conditions that require the use of high density, 
highly rugged, and highly reliable interconnection technology. 
Moreover, the commercial printed circuit board industry focuses 
on the design and high-volume production of low-cost boards and 
the United States has lost much of its printed circuit board 
manufacturing capability to overseas sources. The committee 
recognizes the need to enhance the United States' capability 
for development and production of high density, highly reliable 
printed circuit boards for use in U.S. military systems.
    Finally, the committee understands vacuum-aided mobility 
packing technology may provide considerable benefits for 
transporting troop supplies. The committee is aware that such 
technology may provide significant improvements in weight, 
space, and handling requirements and may facilitate more 
efficient utilization of military lift assets.
    The committee recommends $34.4 million in PE 63712S for 
generic logistics research and development technology 
demonstrations, an increase of $1.0 million for the Connectory 
program for rapid identification of technology sources for the 
Department and an increase of $10.0 million for the emerging 
critical interconnection technology program. The committee also 
urges the Secretary of Defense to explore vacuum-aided mobility 
packing technology as a potential cost saving measure.

Improved suborbital operations

    The budget request contained $254.9 million in PE 63287E 
for space programs and technology, but contained no funds for 
improved suborbital space operations.
    The committee believes that the design and development of 
an unmanned, reusable suborbital launch vehicle to provide a 
platform for tactical battlefield surveillance, can provide 
quick reaction, fast turnaround, and frequent regional 
reconnaissance capabilities.
    The committee recommends $259.9 million in PE 63287E, an 
increase of $5.0 million for improved suborbital space 
operations.

Joint training transformation

    The budget request contained $72.9 million in PE 63757D8Z 
for joint training transformation, but included no funds for 
the development of a joint simulation capability for linking 
campaign analysis to warfighter mission rehearsal. The 
committee recommends the Department of Defense capitalize on 
the joint infrastructure and connectivity built into the Joint 
Warfare System (JWARS) simulation program to expand into 
complementary mission space areas, by linking in-theater tools 
to campaign analysis capabilities and database providers in the 
continental United States.
    The committee recommends $76.9 million in PE 63757D8Z for 
joint training transformation, an increase of $4.0 million for 
joint simulation for linking campaign analysis to warfighter 
mission rehearsal.

Office of force transformation

    The budget request contained $20.4 million in PE 66799D8Z 
for the Office of Force Transformation, including unspecified 
funding for the Project Sheriff initiative, but included no 
funds for the tactical re-directed energy technology 
initiative.
    The committee notes that the Project Sheriff initiative 
meets a validated and approved urgent operational need to 
provide combat commanders with more options for dealing with 
the chaos of urban operations. Project Sheriff is a combat 
system that incorporates a unique blend of lethal and non-
lethal capabilities that have never before been integrated 
together into a single vehicle.
    The tactical re-directed energy technology initiative 
intends to quickly develop an experimental prototype that can 
be rapidly fielded to gain new insights into the use of 
directed energy at the tactical level. The committee notes that 
this initiative focuses on targeting those who lay improvised 
explosive devises (IEDs) rather than the IEDs themselves.
    The committee recommends $30.4 million in PE 66799D8Z, an 
increase of $10.0 million, $5.0 million for the Project Sheriff 
initiative and $5.0 million for the tactical re-directed energy 
initiative program.

Special operations advanced technology development

    The budget request contained $80.4 million in PE 1160402BB 
for special operations advanced technology development, but 
included no funds for special operations modular computing 
technology, for the surveillance augmentation vehicle-
insertable on request (SAVIOR) system, or for Foxhound Arabic 
software.
    The committee understands that U.S. Special Operations 
Command (USSOCOM) is currently procuring non-ruggedized modular 
personal computers and that the Naval Postgraduate School's 
Coalition and Operating Area Surveillance and Targeting System 
(COASTS) plans to further develop the modular personal computer 
application to broader configurations. Additional funds would 
allow the development of a ruggedized version of the modular 
PC.
    The committee understands that the SAVIOR system is a 
mobile, intelligent sensor suite that can alert ground forces 
to the presence of a threat with its intensive surveillance 
network. SAVIOR meets USSOCOM's need for a rapidly 
configurable, highly mobile sensor and command and control 
platform.
    The committee understands that Foxhound Arabic 
transliteration and genealogical search software provides 
USSOCOM with enhanced capability to conduct automated 
transliteration and link-analysis key to counter-terrorism 
operations. The software is currently being used at 
headquarters level and further funding would provide the 
capability to operator levels.
    The committee recommends $92.9 million in PE 1160402BB for 
special operations advanced technology development, an increase 
of $5.0 million for special operations modular computing 
technology, an increase of $3.5 million for development of the 
SAVIOR system and an increase of $4.0 million for Foxhound 
Arabic software.

Special operations forces operational enhancements

    The budget request contained $99.0 million in PE 1160408BB 
for special operations forces (SOF) operational enhancements, 
but included no funds for miniaturized tracking devices. The 
committee understands that these devices provide SOF the 
ability to successfully track and monitor high value targets.
    The committee recommends $106.0 million in PE 1160408BB for 
SOF operational enhancements, an increase of $7.0 million for 
miniaturized tracking devices.

Special operations intelligence systems development

    The budget request contained $29.0 million in PE 1160405BB 
for special operations (SO) intelligence systems development, 
but included no funds for the U.S. Special Operations Command 
(USSOCOM) joint meteorological and oceanographic (METOC) 
program. The joint METOC program provides USSOCOM with 
deployable sensors to measure weather conditions and other 
environmental and situational parameters. The joint METOC 
program would further develop an air-droppable version and 
would meet requirements for additional measurement 
capabilities.
    The committee recommends $34.0 million in PE 1160405BB for 
SO intelligence systems development, an increase of $5.0 
million for the joint METOC program.

Special operations tactical systems development

    The budget request contained $45.3 million in PE 1160404BB 
for special operations tactical systems development, but 
contained no funds for the special operations forces (SOF) 
combat assault rifle (SCAR) or for Dominant Vision, and only 
$1.4 million for covert wave packet modulation (WPM).
    The committee understands that SCAR will replace five 
different weapons systems currently used by SOF and that low 
rate initial production will support milestone C final 
validation for inclusion of SCAR in U.S. Special Operations 
Command's (USSOCOM) 2008 program objective memorandum.
    The committee understands that Dominant Vision enhances 
USSOCOM's capability to conduct special operations by enhancing 
aircrew's situational awareness and ability to locate, identify 
and engage targets. Additional funding would continue 
development of spectral targeting, integrated defense 
capability, and ground station capability, and would integrate 
and test the digital sensor recorder.
    The committee understands that covert WPM waveform modules 
will be embedded into USSOCOM communication, networked threat 
warning and networked sensor systems that are critical to the 
safety and covertness of special operations missions. The 
effort will develop a new joint tactical radio system-compliant 
covert communication capability with embedded positive threat 
identification.
    The committee recommends $58.3 million in PE 1160404BB for 
special operations tactical systems development, an increase of 
$4.1 million for the SOF combat assault rifle, anincrease of 
$4.5 million for Dominant Vision, and an increase of $4.4 million for 
covert WPM waveform modules.

Special operations technology development

    The budget request contained $12.7 million in PE 1160401BB 
for special operations technology development, but included no 
funds for AngelFire and no funds for Global Observer.
    The AngelFire program is derived from the full-spectrum 
active protection close-in layered shield (FCLAS) to protect 
special operations forces' assets from rocket propelled 
grenades by using counter munitions. The committee understands 
that AngelFire will provide increased protection to lightly 
protected aircraft and vehicles operating in hostile 
environments.
    Global Observer promises to fulfill U.S. Special Operations 
Command's (USSOCOM) requirements for persistent intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance. Global Observer will develop a 
seven day endurance, hydrogen-fueled unmanned aircraft system 
that will significantly expand USSOCOM's ability to identify, 
track, and interdict targets, as well as enhance force 
protection of U.S. forces.
    The committee recommends $32.7 million in PE 1160401BB for 
special operations technology development, an increase of $10.0 
million for the AngelFire for FCLAS program, and an increase of 
$10.0 million for the Global Observer program.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $181.5 million for Operational 
Test and Evaluation, Defense.
    The committee recommends $181.5 million, no change to the 
budget request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


              Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would establish the amounts authorized to be 
appropriated for research, development, test, and evaluation 
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007.

         Section 202--Amount for Defense Science and Technology

    This section would establish basic, research, applied 
research, and advanced technology development funding levels 
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


         Section 211--Alternate Engine for Joint Strike Fighter

    This section would require that the Departments of the Navy 
and the Air Force obligate not less than $408.0 million of the 
funds authorized to be appropriated for the system development 
and demonstration program for the Joint Strike Fighter, for 
continued development of an alternate engine for the Joint 
Strike Fighter.

   Section 212--Extension of Authority To Award Prizes for Advanced 
                        Technology Achievements

    This section would amend section 2374a of title 10, United 
States Code, to extend the authority of the Director, Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), to award prizes for 
advanced technology achievements through September 30, 2010. 
The Director's current prize authority would expire on 
September 30, 2007.

    Section 213--Extension of Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

    This section would amend section 2359b of title 10, United 
States Code, to remove the September 30, 2007, termination 
clause for the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program. This 
program, established as a pilot program, has shown its value to 
provide opportunities for the increased introduction of 
innovative and cost-saving technology in acquisition programs 
of the Department of Defense.
    This section would also direct the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics to ensure that 
the identity of each proposed challenger is not disclosed 
outside the federal government, without the consent of the 
challenger.

          Section 214--Future Combat Systems Milestone Review

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a Future Combat Systems (FCS) milestone review, 
following the preliminary design review, by September 30, 2008. 
This section would also require the Secretary to submit a 
report on the results of the FCS milestone review which will be 
a go/no-go review of the FCS program that is based on its 
demonstration of a sound business case to the congressional 
defense committees not later than February 13, 2009.

Section 215--Independent Cost Analyses for Joint Strike Fighter Engine 
                                Program

    This section would require the Comptroller General and the 
Secretary of Defense through the Cost Analysis Improvement 
Group to conduct independent cost analyses and provide 
independent reports on alternate engine acquisition strategies 
for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The reports would include 
an analysis of an acquisition strategy resulting in the JSF 
powered with the F135 engine, an acquisition strategy resulting 
in the JSF powered by either the F135 or the F136 engine 
through a competitive program, or any other alternative, 
whether competitive or sole source, that would reduce the total 
program lifecycle cost, improve program schedule, or both.

Section 216--Dedicated Amounts for Implementing or Evaluating DD(X) and 
      CVN-21 Proposals Under Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program with an 
additional $4.0 million to evaluate or implement challenge 
proposals specifically for the DD(X) next-generation destroyer 
and the CVN-21 next-generation aircraft carrier programs.

                 Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense


    Section 221--Fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities

    This section would allow funds to be authorized to the 
Secretary of Defense for research, development, test, and 
evaluation for the Missile Defense Agency to be used for the 
development and fielding of ballistic missile defense 
capabilities.

  Section 222--Limitation on Use of Funds for Space Based Interceptor

    This section would prevent the Department of Defense from 
obligating funds for the testing or deployment of a space-based 
interceptor program until 90 days after submitting a report to 
Congress describing the program and its national security 
implications.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


 Section 231--Review of Test and Evaluation Policies and Practices To 
                Address Emerging Acquisition Approaches

    This section would amend section 239(b)(2) of title 10, 
United States Code, to require the Director, Operational Test 
and Evaluation (DOT&E) to state whether the results of 
operational test and evaluation of major defense acquisition 
programs confirm that the items tested are operationally 
acceptable under limited conditions. Under current law, DOT&E 
prepares a report at the conclusion of operational test and 
evaluation, stating: (1) whether the test and evaluation 
performed were adequate, and (2) whether the results of such 
test and evaluation confirm that the items tested are effective 
and suitable for combat.
    The committee is aware that in the Director's report, DOT&E 
evaluates a system as not operationally effective or suitable 
for combat if the system does not fully meet the Capabilities 
Development Document (CDD), or similar description of the 
user's standards for effectiveness and suitability as reflected 
in the requirements process. DOT&E has also informally included 
assessments of military utility for mission environments which 
are less than those set forth in the system's requirements. 
This section would formalize this valuable analysis by DOT&E to 
enable reasoned decision making by the combatant commanders and 
acquisition program managers regarding the fielding of systems 
which meet some, but not all, of the systems' requirements.
    This section would also require the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), 
in coordination with DOT&E and the Director of the Defense Test 
Resource Management Center (DTRMC) to review Department of 
Defense test and evaluation (T&E) policies and practices and 
issue new or revised guidance, as necessary, to ensure test and 
evaluation practices keep pace with emerging acquisition 
approaches.
    The committee is aware that T&E policies and practices have 
been impacted by both the spiral development authorities and 
the rapid acquisition authorities of sections 803 and 806, 
respectively, of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314). T&E policies and 
practices could potentially be further impacted by other 
emerging acquisition approaches. For example, should USD(AT&L) 
accept therecommendations of the ``Defense Acquisition 
Performance Assessment'' (DAPA) report issued in January 2006, T&E 
policies and practices could be affected by the implementation of time-
certain development programs. The DAPA report defines time-certain 
development programs as development programs which are assigned, ``. . 
. a specific length of time in which milestone events will be 
accomplished by contract.'' The committee wishes to ensure that T&E 
policies and practices neither impede the intended flexibilities of 
these authorities nor fail to provide an independent assessment of 
system capabilities. Lastly, the committee believes T&E policies and 
practices should be reviewed to ensure the Department is properly 
testing and evaluating materiel, such as outer tactical vests, that do 
not fall within the purview of DOT&E, because they do not meet the 
acquisition thresholds set forth in sections 2366 and 2399 of title 10, 
United States Code, but which do require limited operational test and 
evaluation to ensure the safety and survivability of the materiel and 
the personnel using the materiel.
    This section would also require the Director of DTRMC to 
ensure that any revisions to T&E policies and practices are 
reflected in a description of and in the budgeting for the 
testing needs of the Department. Finally, this section would 
require USD (AT&L) to report to the congressional defense 
committees within nine months after the enactment of the this 
Act on the review conducted and on any new or revised guidance 
issued.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained approximately $154.8 billion 
in operation and maintenance funds to ensure the U.S. military 
can meet the demands identified by each combatant commander. 
These funds will be used to train U.S. forces, purchase 
equipment and spare parts, repair older equipment, and 
transport equipment and personnel around the world. The budget 
request represents an increase of $7.4 billion over spending 
levels authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2006. The 
challenge for the Department of Defense is that most of the 
$7.4 billion covers civilian pay raises and general inflation 
($4.0 billion) and price growth due to rising fuel costs ($3.0 
billion). The committee is concerned that the total budget 
increase does not accurately reflect the impact of inflation 
and increased fuel prices.
    The committee is concerned about the state of military 
readiness, as the global war on terrorism (GWOT) enters its 
fifth year. The committee notes that the increased budget 
request actually funds fewer operation and maintenance related 
activities critical to ensuring the armed forces' ability to 
fight and win our nation's wars. As the Department faces rising 
health care costs, fuel costs and inflation, budget challenges 
are found in the operation and maintenance accounts. Currently, 
all the services are funded below the levels required to 
conduct the minimal training necessary to maintain military 
readiness. For example, the shortfalls in fiscal year 2007 
budget are as follows:
          (1) Navy funds only 36 steaming days a quarter versus 
        the required 51 steaming days per quarter;
          (2) Navy increases deferred maintenance from $54.0 
        million in fiscal year 2005 to $240.0 million in fiscal 
        year 2007;
          (3) Army funds 615 tank miles a year versus the 
        combined arms training strategy requirement of 899 
        miles;
          (4) Army funds 11.6 helicopter flying hours per month 
        versus 14.5 helicopter flying hours per month;
          (5) Marine Corps funds 88 percent of the combat ready 
        days--equipment and training requirement; and
          (6) Air Force funds 98 percent of the flying hour 
        training requirement while mission capable rates are 
        scheduled to fall to 75 percent for the first time 
        since 1998.
    In the fiscal year 2006 Future Years Defense Program 
(FYDP), the services anticipated receiving $154.7 billion for 
operation and maintenance programs in fiscal year 2007. 
Instead, this year's budget request is $154.8 billion, a 
decrease of $0.1 billion. Combined with the $4.0 billion in 
price growth due to inflation and the $3.0 billion in price 
growth due to rising fuel costs, the budget request reduces 
critical training and maintenance programs by close to $7.0 
billion. The committee is concerned by this overall decrease in 
the dollars available to conduct training and maintenance 
activities and its long-term impact on military readiness.
    In addition, the committee notes an increasing propensity 
by the Department to fund activities, or portions of 
activities, formerly found in the procurement and military 
construction accounts with operation and maintenance dollars. 
In particular, the military services are increasing their use 
of service contracts for military flight simulator training and 
initial flight screening and classifying this training as a 
``commercial'' service. These contracts include facility site 
surveys, construction of training facilities and leasing of 
training equipment. The committee is concerned about the 
consequences of poor performance on any of these service 
contracts and the potential gap in vital military training if 
these contracts are terminated, leaving the department with no 
organic capacity to conduct the training.
    For the last three years, the committee has closely 
examined the ability of the secretaries of the military 
departments to reset and reconstitute military equipment that 
has returned from deployment. The committee is concerned that 
the high rate of equipment damage and battle loss, coupled with 
continuing equipment requirements in theater and at home 
station, present the services with a growing problem. To 
address this critical challenge, the service secretaries must 
develop sound strategies to fulfill their reset requirements. 
The committee believes that, despite other service initiatives 
such as transformation and modernization, equipment reset must 
be among the services' highest priorities. This requires not 
only a commitment to adequately fund, but also carefully 
considered policies in areas that support equipment reset, such 
as industrial facility utilization and the procurement of next 
generation weapons systems. The service secretaries must also 
base these well reasoned strategies on full and accurate 
information. The committee is concerned that, in some cases, a 
lack of information prevents the services from accurately 
programming for equipment reset. For example, the Department 
has not yet made a decision on what will be done with the 
equipment currently in Iraq. The committee urges the service 
secretaries to adequately provide for the equipment needs of 
the reserve component, and in the case of the Army, to identify 
and segregate the requirements and funding associated with 
equipment reset and the service's transformation to modularity.
    Finally, the committee recognizes the contribution and 
performance of the public depots and arsenals. The GWOT 
requirement on these industrial facilities continues and the 
committee commends them for their ongoing role in ensuring our 
national security.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                 Budget Request Adjustments--Readiness

    The committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
fiscal year 2007 amended budget request:

[in millions of dollars]

Department of the Army Adjustments:
    BA 1  Army Management Headquarters Activities.............    (19.1)
    BA 1  Combat Development Core.............................    (47.7)
    BA 1  M-Gator.............................................      +1.0
    BA 1  Restoration of Training Requirement.................     +82.1
    BA 1  Standing Joint Forces Headquarters..................     (5.0)
    BA 1  Unfunded Requirements in Depot Maintenance..........    +101.0
    BA 2  Logistics Modernization Program.....................     (2.3)
    BA 2  Restoration of Prepositioned Stocks.................    +105.8
    BA 3  Live Training Instrumentation for Air and Missile 
      Defense Units...........................................      +4.0
    BA 3  Leadership for Leaders Command and General Staff 
      College.................................................      +1.0
    BA 3  Spirit of America JROTC Youth Conference............      +0.4
    BA 4  Army Operations Center Headquarters.................    (50.0)
    BA 4  Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery.............      +3.5
    BA 4  Combat Readiness Center.............................    (16.2)
    BA 4  Continue Holocaust Education Exhibits...............      +0.5
    BA 4  Future Business Systems.............................     (4.9)
    BA 4  Logistics Modernization Program.....................     (4.6)
    BA 4  Other Contracts--Excessive Growth...................    (31.1)
    Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances Estimate...   (100.0)
    BA 1  National Guard Advanced Solar Covers................      +1.0
    BA 1  National Guard Army National Guard Battery 
      Modernization Program...................................      +6.0
    BA 1  National Guard Extended Cold Weather Clothing System      +1.0
    BA 1  National Guard Homeland Defense Operational Planning 
      System..................................................     +10.0
    BA 1  National Guard Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic 
      Network.................................................      +2.5
    BA 1  Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams.....      +9.5
    BA 4  National Guard Citizen Soldier Support Program......      +0.9
    Undistributed National Guard restore Funding to Support 
      350K End Strength.......................................    +220.0
    BA 4  Reserve Citizen Soldier Program.....................      +0.9
Department of the Navy Adjustments:
    BA 1  Damage Control Inventory Management and Stowage 
      System..................................................      +3.0
    BA 1  Man Overboard Safety System Installation............      +3.0
    BA 1  METBENCH Automated Calibration System...............      +3.7
    BA 1  Navy Enterprise Resource Planning...................    (10.0)
    BA 1  Restore Ship Deferred Maintenance...................    +145.0
    BA 1  Restore Steaming Day Reduction......................    +121.0
    BA 1  Shipyard Rate Savings--Mission Funding Conversion...   (262.0)
    BA 1  Unfunded Aviation Requirements......................     +75.0
    BA 2  U.S. Navy Ship Disposal Program.....................      +8.0
    BA 3  Continued Education for Childcare Providers.........      +1.0
    BA 3  Naval Sea Cadet Corps...............................      +0.3
    BA 3  Navy National Guard RINGGOLD Linguists..............      +0.4
    BA 4  Flash Detection System..............................      +4.0
    BA 4  FYDP Improvement Project............................     (9.6)
    BA 4  Navy/Marine Corps Intranet..........................    (70.0)
    BA 4  NAV 2030 Vision Principals..........................     (2.0)
    BA 4  Other Contracts--Excessive Growth...................    (15.0)
    BA 4  PR-07/POM-08 Planning and Analysis..................     (3.0)
    BA 4  Special Project Aircraft............................      +3.0
    BA 4  Trident.............................................      +3.0
    BA 4  Unjustified Growth for HQ Staff.....................     (8.9)
    Undistributed Navy Civilian Personnel Overstatement.......    (96.8)
    Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances Estimate...   (135.0)
United States Marine Corps Adjustments:
    BA 1  Cold Weather High Performance Layering System.......      +2.0
    BA 1  EMI Hardened Fluorescent Stringable Tent Lighting 
      System..................................................      +7.0
    BA 1  Marine Air Traffic Control and Landing System.......      +9.0
    BA 1  Maritime Prepositioning Reconstitution..............      +9.9
    BA 1  Redesignation / Establishment of Unnecessary Command 
      Structures..............................................     (5.9)
    BA 1  Unfunded Requirements in Depot Maintenance..........     +40.1
    BA 3  Formal School Support...............................      +8.6
    BA 3  Recruit Training Support............................      +2.4
    BA 3  Training Support Requirements.......................     +25.0
    Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances............     (3.0)
Department of the Air Force Adjustments:
    BA 1  B-52 Attrition Reserve..............................     +49.8
    BA 1  Counter Space Operations............................    (10.0)
    BA 1  MBU-20/P Oxygen Mask with Lights....................      +2.0
    BA 1  Nevada Test and Training Range / Utah Test and 
      Training Range..........................................      +8.0
    BA 1  Unjustified Transformational Efficiencies...........     +70.0
    BA 3  Euro NATO Jet Pilot Training........................    (10.0)
    BA 3  Initial Flight Screening............................     (5.0)
    BA 3  National Space Center Study.........................      +2.0
    BA 4  Administration--General Reduction...................    (10.0)
    BA 4  Air Force Manufacturing Technical Assistance 
      Production..............................................      +4.0
    BA 4  Unjustified Growth..................................   (115.0)
    Undistributed Executive General Schedule..................   (180.0)
    Undistributed Other Contracts--Excessive Growth...........    (50.0)
    Undistributed Ranch Hand Data.............................      +0.9
Defense-Wide Activities Adjustments:
    BA 1  JCS--Excessive Growth...............................    (10.0)
    BA 4  Capital Security Cost Share.........................    (33.0)
    BA 4  Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities 
      (CMTA)..................................................     +15.0
    BA 4  Kids Voting Pilot Program...........................      +0.2
    BA 4  Meals Ready to Eat Reserve..........................      +5.0
    BA 4  Port of Corpus Christi Seaport Infrastructure.......      +5.0
    BA 4  Procurement Technical Assistance Program............      +6.8
    BA 4  Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 
      (REPI)..................................................     +30.0
    BA 4  Starbase............................................      +1.0
    BA 4  WHS Excessive Growth................................    (14.0)
    Undistributed Cold War Medal..............................      +2.0
    Undistributed DOD Supplementary Impact Aid................     +50.0
    Undistributed DOD Supplementary Impact Aid--Force 
      Structure/Relocation....................................     +15.0
    Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances Estimate...   (272.1)
    Undistributed Ranch Hand Data.............................      +0.2

                Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery

    The budget request contained $70.8 million for the Army 
Knowledge Management program.
    The Knowledge Management program is an enterprise wide 
program that will transform the Army into a network-centric, 
knowledge-based force. An essential part of this effort is the 
Army Knowledge Online (AKO) Disaster Recovery initiative, which 
serves as the communications center for AKO Disaster Recovery 
operations throughout the Army.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $74.3 million for the 
Knowledge Management program, an increase of $3.5 million in 
operation and maintenance for the Army to upgrade the AKO 
Disaster Recovery operation.

                      Capital Security Cost Share

    The budget request contained $126.7 million for capital 
security cost share.
    The committee notes that a November 2004 Government 
Accountability Office report estimated the cost share for the 
Department of Defense (DOD) for fiscal year 2007 to be $93.1 
million. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the 
Secretary of Defense has no accounting of defense personnel 
stationed in overseas diplomatic facilities and therefore can 
not reconcile the cost share levied by the Secretary of State. 
Accordingly, this Act contains a provision (Section 344) that 
would require the Secretary of Defense to perform an annual 
accounting of DOD overseas staffing requirements.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $93.7 million for the 
Capital Security Cost Share program, a decrease of $33.0 
million.

          Combat Enhancement Forces and Combat Communications

    The budget request contained $603.7 million for Air Force 
combat enhancement forces and $1.6 billion for combat 
communications.
    The committee notes that most of these critical forces have 
been operating above maximum surge levels since the beginning 
of the global war on terrorism and reports continue to reflect 
a declining trend in the readiness of these forces. The 
committee strongly believes that special operations forces and 
weather teams, combat rescue forces, combat control teams, 
manned reconnaissance platforms, and electronic warfare 
capabilities are critical defense assets and this decline in 
readiness must be addressed.
    The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for 
combat enhancement forces and an increase of $30.0 million for 
combat communications.

              Homeland Defense Operational Planning System

    The budget request contained no funds for operation and 
maintenance of the California Army National Guard's homeland 
defense operational planning system (HOPS).
    The committee understands HOPS received initial funding in 
fiscal year 2004 and continued collaboration with Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory will further develop the 
operational capability of HOPS, which provides highly detailed 
situational awareness thatenhances the California Army National 
Guard's ability to prepare for, and respond to, weapons of mass 
destruction attacks and to defend facilities critical to the U.S. 
infrastructure.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for 
HOPS.

               Maritime Prepositioning Ship Lease Buyout

    The budget request contained $35.1 million in the National 
Defense Sealift Fund to exercise the purchase options on 1 of 
the 10 remaining maritime prepositioning ships on long- term 
lease.
    The committee is aware of the continuing need for these 
ships beyond the original 25-year-term and the lifecycle cost 
savings garnered by exercising the purchase options. The 
committee recommends exercising the purchase option on all of 
the 10 remaining maritime prepositioning ships, as soon as 
possible.
    The committee recommends $101.9 million in the National 
Defense Sealift Fund to exercise the purchase option on 2 of 
the 10 remaining maritime prepositioning ships on long-term 
lease, an increase of $66.8 million.

                Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network

    The budget request contained no funding for the Nationwide 
Dedicated Fiber Optic Network (NDFON).
    NDFON will provide a dedicated, high speed, high bandwidth 
fiber optic network backbone to support national guard 
operations. The committee continues to urge the Department of 
Defense to complete this network, which showed its value in the 
national guard's response to Hurricane Katrina. When no cell 
phones were working on the storm ravaged Gulf Coast, the NDFON 
backbone provided critical, reliable communications capability.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 
million in operation and maintenance for the Army National 
Guard to complete the NDFON nationwide engineering design 
package.

                       Navy Marine Corps Intranet

    The committee supports the Navy Marine Corps Intranet 
(NMCI) and commends the Secretary of the Navy for resolving the 
long standing contract dispute on the NMCI contract. The 
committee remains concerned, however, about the cost of the 
contract and the enduring nature of legacy programs that a now 
mature NMCI was designed to replace. For that reason, the 
committee cannot support the increased funding contained in the 
budget request.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $240.5 million in 
servicewide communications for NMCI, a decrease of $70.0 
million.

                         Port of Corpus Christi

    The committee directs the Director of the Department of 
Defense Office of Economic Adjustment to provide $5.0 million 
to the Port of Corpus Christi for military seaport 
infrastructure upgrades.

           Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

    The budget request contained $20.0 million for the 
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI).
    The committee expects the secretaries of the military 
departments to use the authority and funding available through 
the REPI program to enter into agreements with willing entities 
to prevent or limit the use of property in the vicinity of a 
military installation that would impede the mission of that 
military installation. The committee is pleased by the recent 
successes of the REPI program at installations such as Fort 
Carson, and expects the Secretary of the Army to continue to 
adequately fund the REPI efforts at Fort Carson, which the Army 
identifies as its highest priority site. The committee also 
encourages the other services to explore the utilization of 
this authority at installations such as Whiteman Air Force 
Base, McChord Air Force Base, Fairchild Air Force Base, and 
Naval Air Station Whidby.
    The committee recommends $50.0 million for the Readiness 
and Environmental Protection Initiative, an increase of $30.0 
million.

            Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams

    The budget request contained no funding for additional 
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST).
    The committee recognizes the value of the Army National 
Guard's WMD-CST in rapid support of civilian first responders 
in the event of a chemical, biological, or radiological 
incident. Now that each state's national guard has a WMD-CST, 
the committee believes that states possessing obvious targets 
should be identified for a second team. In that regard, the 
committee is pleased to note that California has a second team, 
and believes that New York should have a second team as well.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $9.5 
million for the Army National Guard to establish a second WMD-
CST in New York.

                          Environmental Issues


            Fuel Tank Replacement at Point Loma, California

    The committee is concerned about the fuel tank leakage at 
the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) Fuel Storage Point 
(DFSP) at Naval Base Point Loma, California. Data from recent 
monitoring of the ground soil indicate that the leakage is more 
extensive than originally estimated. In addition to ongoing 
mitigation efforts, the committee is aware that the DESC has a 
military construction project in the fiscal year 2008 Future 
Years Defense Program that would replace all existing bulk 
storage infrastructure with modern, Department of Defense-
standard storage tanks and support equipment. The committee 
notes that the DFSP is part of the strategic reserve, and its 
capabilities and readiness are matters of national security. 
The committee expects the Navy and the DESC to expedite to the 
furthest extent practicable their clean up actions, and to 
continue an ongoing dialogue about data, findings, and status 
with the congressional defense committees and the local 
community.

   Non-thermal Treatment of Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Material

    The committee is concerned about the long-term effects of 
the disposal of asbestos and asbestos containing material 
(ACM). The committee recognizes the benefits of transforming 
asbestos and ACM into a non-hazardous material and notes the 
problems associated with thermal treatment of hazardous waste. 
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) is 
currently testing the application of non-thermal treatment 
processes. The committee encourages the Department to continue 
its exploration of non-thermal asbestos technology and to 
consider its use when treating asbestos or ACM at DOD 
installations.

              Report on Uranium Located in Gore, Oklahoma

    The committee acknowledges that since completion of work in 
1993, 1.5 million pounds (approximately 1,200 barrels) of U.S. 
Government-provided uranium is being stored at the former 
Sequoyah Fuels Corporation site located in Gore, Oklahoma. This 
site was used to convert DU6 to DU4 for use by the Army in 
anti-tank ammunition. The storage of this uranium at the Gore, 
Oklahoma, site may impede the efforts to decontaminate and 
decommission the facility.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to work in conjunction with the Secretary of Energy to submit a 
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services no later than six months after the 
enactment of this Act that would identify whether a remediation 
plan is necessary regarding the uranium located in Gore, 
Oklahoma, and, if so, the plans for remediation.

Site Assessment of Former World War II Ordnance Manufacturing Facility, 
                          Rosemount, Minnesota

    The committee is aware that the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers recently completed a preliminary assessment of 
property in Rosemount, Minnesota. The property, once the site 
of an ordnance manufacturing facility (Gopher Ordnance Works), 
is now owned by the University of Minnesota. The committee 
notes that one potential next action in this environmental 
cleanup process is for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
conduct a site inspection of the property. The committee is 
interested in the expeditious resolution of this matter, and 
therefore requests the Secretary of the Army to initiate the 
next action in the process. Furthermore, the committee expects 
the Secretary to continue an ongoing dialogue about data, 
findings, and status with the congressional defense committees 
and the local community.

                     Information Technology Issues


                    Information Technology Overview

    The committee remains deeply concerned with information 
technology (IT) development, procurement, and management across 
the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee recognizes the 
challenges of building a fully integrated, secure, reliable 
system for a world-wide deployable military force. The 
committee also recognizes that the challenge is complicated by 
conflicting user requirements and a decentralized procurement 
system. In many ways, the Department's IT difficulties are a 
subset of DOD's larger acquisition challenges. Notwithstanding 
the difficulties, the committee believes that too many of the 
Department's IT programs are poorly managed and would benefit 
from increased scrutiny and a new way of doing business.
    The committee supports the Department's broad goal of net 
centric operations, but is troubled by the procurement history 
of the Global Information Grid, the backbone of net centric 
operations. The committee notes the findings of the Government 
Accountability Office report ``DOD Management Approach and 
Processes Not Well-Suited to Support Development of Global 
Information Grid,'' dated January 30, 2006. This report clearly 
describes the great risk of attempting to build an enterprise-
wide system for which no one entity is in charge and for which 
no one can enforce operational or investment decisions.
    For these reasons, the committee believes a prudent pause 
in selected IT programs is in order to allow the broader 
development of the Global Information Grid to progress. In that 
way, spending on these systems of the future can be more 
precisely directed to the reality of a more mature GIG 
backbone, resulting in greater efficiency and more rapid 
deployment of new systems. To that end, the committee has 
recommended funding reductions elsewhere in this report in 
several programs.
    Similarly, the committee has recommended legislation that 
would require new business systems to come swiftly to fruition 
or lose funding. The committee believes that this change, along 
with other, broader acquisition initiatives recommended by the 
committee, will begin to realize greater efficiencies in DOD 
information technology programs. The committee believes that 
information technology is one of the critical elements that 
make our military forces as lethal as they are--but for almost 
$31 billion, we must do better.

  Business Transformation Agency and Enterprise Risk Assessment Model

    The committee is heartened by the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense's decision to create the Business Transformation Agency 
(BTA), and will monitor its activities closely to ensure it 
adds value to the management of enterprise-wide business 
programs. Far too often, information technology (IT) programs 
are created with great promise, only to fall victim to the 
impossible goal of perfection. The result: expensive new 
programs drag on for years, not realizing their potential, 
while the legacy systems they were designed to replace continue 
to consume operation and maintenance dollars.
    To that end, the committee also supports the recently 
announced Enterprise Risk Assessment Model (ERAM), which 
promises to speed the delivery of DOD wide business systems and 
provide streamlined execution of programs. The committee 
applauds these initiatives and urges the Secretary of Defense 
to support these new enterprises.

                            Readiness Issues


                        Air Force Transformation

    The committee is aware that the Air Force has initiated a 
transformation plan in an effort to modernize and recapitalize 
the force structure by focusing on three major areas: 
streamlining the organizational structure, incorporating 
process efficiencies, and continuing force structure reductions 
to become a more lethal, agile, and balanced total force. 
Although not clearly justified, the fiscal year 2007 operation 
and maintenance budget request reflects a $945.0 million 
reduction due to efficiencies that the Air Force anticipates 
reaping through transformation. The committee is aware of 
declining trends in readiness, and is concerned that these 
trends will continue to decline as a result of this swift move 
to organizational change.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 
2007, describing transformational initiatives, evaluating the 
impact of these changes on unit-level readiness, detailing 
force structure realignments and reductions, and accounting 
actual cost savings accrued through the transformational 
initiatives.

                      Army Logistics Modernization

    The committee is encouraged by the Army's efforts to 
transform its logistics processes and is interested in the 
potential of the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) to 
streamline logistics and improve financial management. However, 
a June 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO), Army Depot Maintenance: Ineffective Oversight of Depot 
Maintenance Operations and Systems Implementation Efforts, 
describes the problems associated with the implementation of 
LMP at Tobyhanna Army Depot. The committee is concerned with 
these findings and directs the Secretary of the Army to submit 
a report to the House Committee on Armed Services and the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2006, on the 
status of the LMP deficiencies outlined in GAO's report.

     Base Operating Support and Facilities Recapitalization Budget 
                               Shortfalls

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the 
committee expressed concern that shortfalls in base operating 
support (BOS) budgets at U.S. military installations were 
causing the services to consider a decrease in basic services 
such as child care, dining hall operations, and facilities 
management activities. As such, the committee urged the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to fully fund and execute BOS 
sustainment, and facilities recapitalization accounts.
    Despite this level of congressional interest in and 
commitment to BOS and facilities recapitalization accounts, the 
fiscal year 2007 budget request once again contains severe 
shortfalls in these areas. For instance, Army BOS budgets are 
underfunded by at least $1.9 billion, Army National Guard and 
Reserve BOS budgets are underfunded by more than $360.0 
million, and Air Force BOS budgets are underfunded by more than 
$250.0 million.
    In general, BOS requirements are ``must pay'' bills, 
failure to fully fund these accounts will result in a decrease 
in base services, such as shortened hours at dining facilities, 
elimination of recreational activities, or increased fees for 
morale, welfare, and recreation activities. While DOD leaders 
have expressed their intent to transfer funds into these 
accounts during the fiscal year, this approach is a haphazard 
manner of managing budget accounts that are significant both in 
size and impact on personnel.
    In addition to the Department's general failure to support 
BOS requirements, analysis of facilities restoration, and 
modernization budgets indicates that the services have 
essentially ceased to fund these accounts.
    The services have justified their actions, in part, by 
citing DOD models for facilities sustainment and 
recapitalization which show facilities ``recap rates'' that are 
below DOD targets. Unfortunately, these indicators were skewed 
by the impact of base closure activities and funding to rebuild 
after natural disasters. Nevertheless, these results, which 
effectively overstate the level of funding provided to the 
general inventory of facilities, have been used to justify 
severe decreases in restoration and modernization accounts. The 
committee is greatly concerned with this misapplication of 
facilities management model results.
    After decades of failing to fund facilities construction, 
sustainment, restoration, and modernization budgets, the 
Department's recent efforts to ensure that its facilities are 
properly maintained over their lifecycles is ``one step 
forward''. Unfortunately, budget requests that virtually 
eliminate facilities restoration and modernization funding, 
such as the fiscal year 2007 request, represent ``two steps 
backward''.
    This ``pause'' in restoration and modernization budgets 
will be difficult to reverse in the current budget environment, 
likely resulting in an entire generation of facilities passing 
through mid-lifecycle periods without renovations required to 
maintain the ability to support military requirements.
    The committee urges the service secretaries to increase 
funding for facilities restoration and modernization in future 
budget requests. Supporting such requirements is critical to 
extending the useful lifecycle of DOD facilities while 
maintaining quality work and living environments.
    In general, the committee is greatly concerned by the 
direction of the Department's requests for installation 
operation and management budgets. If the Department continues 
to fail to fund these accounts, there will be substantial 
negative impacts on both military readiness and quality of 
life. As such, the committee urges DOD leadership to renew its 
commitment to installations management budgets by fully funding 
BOS sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts in 
current and future fiscal years.

                    Beryllium Supply Industrial Base

    The Department of Defense (DOD) issued a report in May 
2004, at the direction of Congress, concluding that the 
strategic and critical metal, beryllium, plays a key role in 
systems that support the transformational armed services. This 
report also noted that the domestic supply of beryllium is in 
danger of being depleted because the only domestic supplier has 
closed its primary metal production facility.
    A total of $10.8 million was appropriated by congress 
during the past two years, through the Defense Production Act 
purchases for the design and construction of a new beryllium 
production plant. In order to complete the timely construction 
of the plant, the committee supports the $7.5 million in the 
President's request for the Beryllium Supply Industrial Base 
Project.

          Depot Maintenance Strategy and Implementation Plans

    The committee notes that in fiscal year 2005 the Air 
Force's three air logistics centers exceeded scheduled aircraft 
production, reduced costs, achieved the highest ever on-time 
delivery record, and improved overall quality of work. The 
committee believes that the implementation of the 2002 Air 
Force Depot Maintenance Master Strategy was a driving factor in 
this transformational success and commends the Air Force for 
these achievements.
    Furthermore, the committee notes that despite the direction 
in the committee report (H. Rept. 108-106) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the 
Secretary of Defense has not developed a comprehensive, 
results-oriented management plan to guide future service depot 
maintenance and has not provided a framework that assures the 
long-term viability of the depot system. The committee believes 
that it is essential that the Secretary build upon past 
strategic planning efforts, including the recent successes 
generated by implementation of the Air Force's Depot 
Maintenance Master Strategy, to help guide futureservice depot 
maintenance. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary to develop 
an overarching depot maintenance strategy for the department and to 
submit a report on this strategy, by March 1, 2007, to the 
congressional defense committees. This report, at a minimum, shall 
include:
          (1) An assessment of the extent to which current 
        facilities will continue to be used;
          (2) An assessment of the extent to which the 
        appropriate work is being performed in the depots to 
        maintain core capability;
          (3) Future planning for core capability and the 
        identification of workloads by depot and commodity 
        group that are currently being performed in the depots;
          (4) Current workforce breakdown and a personnel 
        requirements strategy for maintaining the required 
        workforce;
          (5) Planned equipment and facility improvements and 
        the associated funding stream, by depot with 
        distinction made for that which is planned as a 
        replacement and that which will provide capability for 
        a new system;
          (6) A specification of statutory, regulatory or 
        operational impediments, if any, to achieving a 
        strategy that enables a capital investment in 
        facilities, equipment, processes and personnel of an 
        amount not less than six percent of the actual total 
        revenue; and
          (7) A description of the benchmarks established by 
        each depot for capital investment and the relations of 
        the benchmarks to applicable performance methods used 
        in the private sector.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to evaluate 
this report and provide comment and analysis to the 
congressional defense committees no later than 90 days after 
the Secretary of Defense submits the report.

                    High Altitude Aviation Training

    The committee is aware that a portion of non-hostile losses 
of Army rotary winged aircraft in Operation Enduring Freedom 
and Operation Iraqi freedom are related to operations in high 
elevations and mountainous terrain. The committee believes that 
high altitude aviation training can reduce the number of the 
accidents by ensuring that crews are properly trained and 
current in the procedures for operating in such a challenging 
environment. Therefore, the committee requests the Secretary of 
the Army provide a report on high altitude aviation training to 
the congressional defense committees by December 15, 2006. The 
report should include:
          (1) The current location and type of high altitude 
        training, to include the percentage of pilots who 
        receive such training on an annual basis at each 
        location and the types of aircraft used in such 
        training;
          (2) The number and type of helicopters required to 
        provide the high altitude aviation training needed to 
        sustain the war strategies contained in the 2006 
        Quadrennial Defense Review, assuming that priority for 
        such training is given to commanders, instructor 
        pilots, aviation safety officers, and deploying units; 
        and
          (3) A thorough evaluation of the accident rates for 
        deployed Army helicopter pilots who received high 
        altitude training and deployed helicopter pilots who 
        did not receive such training, including the number of 
        accidents related to power management, using high and 
        low estimates and the number of accidents involving 
        combat and non-combat environments.

                  National Space Studies Center Study

    The committee is well aware of the increasing reliance on 
space to support both our warfighters and our global economy 
and believes that it is imperative to have a comprehensive 
understanding of how dependence on space assets, both military 
and commercial, can impact U.S. national security and economic 
security. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, through the National Space Studies Center, to expand 
ongoing efforts to assess the value of space contributions with 
emphasis on the United States dependence on space, innovative 
ideas contributing to ensuring freedom of action in space, and 
integration of all space forces.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

    This section would authorize $129.8 billion in operation 
and maintenance funding for the military departments and 
defense-wide activities.

                   Section 302--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize $2.6 billion for working 
capital funds of the Department of Defense and the National 
Defense Sealift Fund.

           Section 303--Other Department of Defense Programs

    This section would authorize $22.4 billion for other 
Department of Defense Programs for (1) the Defense Health 
Program; (2) Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction; (3) 
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide; 
and (4) the Defense Inspector General.

                  Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions


 Section 311--Revision of Requirement for Unexploded Ordnance Program 
                                Manager

    This section would rescind the authority extended to the 
Secretary of Defense to delegate the unexploded ordnance 
program manager position to one of the military departments. 
This section would also add research to the list of duties for 
this position.

   Section 312--Identification and Monitoring of Military Munitions 
 Disposal Sites in Ocean Waters Extending From United States Coast to 
               Outer Boundary of Outer Continental Shelf

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
identify, research, monitor, and provide navigational and 
safety information on conventional and chemical military 
munitions disposal sites in the ocean waters that extend from 
the United States coast to the outer boundary of the outer 
continental shelf. Specifically, it would require the Secretary 
to review historical records to determine the number and 
probable locations of disposal sites, the size of these sites, 
and the types and quantities of military munitions disposed of 
at these sites. The Secretary shall release periodically to the 
public and submit annually to Congress the information obtained 
in this review. This section would also require the Secretary 
to cooperate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to inform those who use the ocean environment of 
known or potential hazards. Finally, this section would require 
the Secretary to conduct research on the effects of military 
munitions, and to monitor certain disposal sites to recognize 
and track potential contamination.

   Section 313--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 
 Certain Costs in Connection With Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, 
                         Moses Lake, Washington

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer not more than $111,114.03 to the Moses Lake Wellfield 
Superfund Site, 10-6J Special Account, to reimburse the 
Environmental Protection Agency for costs incurred in 
overseeing a remedial investigation and feasibility study 
performed by the Department of the Army.

  Section 314--Funding of Cooperative Agreements Under Environmental 
                          Restoration Program

    This section would amend section 2701(d)(2) of title 10, 
United States Code, to allow cooperative agreements entered 
into for environmental restoration at defense facilities to 
extend beyond the present two-year limitation when the 
agreements are funded out of either the Department of Defense 
Base Closure Account 1990 or the Department of Defense Base 
Closure Account 2005.

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

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to report to Congress not later than January 30, 2007, on 
matters relating to contamination and remediation of property 
at the Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply Point in Norwalk, 
California. This section would also prohibit the Secretary from 
conveying the property by public auction before pursuing a fair 
market value transfer of the property to the city of Norwalk, 
submitting the report required, and providing an explanation of 
why efforts to transfer the property to the city have not been 
successful.

                 Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues


   Section 321--Extension of Exclusion of Certain Expenditures From 
    Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Depot-Level Maintenance

    This section would extend for five years the authority to 
exclude amounts expended for the performance of depot-level 
maintenance and repair workload by non-federal government 
personnel at a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence 
from the percentage limitation in section 2466(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, if the personnel performing the work are 
provided pursuant to a public-private partnership.

      Section 322--Minimum Capital Investment for Air Force Depots

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to invest a minimum of six percent of the total revenue of the 
Air Force depots in the capital investment budget to improve or 
sustain depot maintenance facilities, equipment, or processes.

     Section 323--Extension of Temporary Authority for Contractor 
                Performance of Security Guard Functions

    This section would amend subsection 332(c) of the Bob Stump 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 
Law 107-314) to extend the temporary authority to contract for 
increased performance of security guard functions. The 
authority would expire at the end of fiscal year 2008. This 
section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report by February 1, 2007, to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and House Committee on Armed Services detailing 
progress towards implementing the recommendations of the 
Government Accountability Office report entitled, ``Army's 
Guard Program Requires Greater Oversight and Reassessment of 
Acquisition Approach.'' The extension of authority granted in 
this section would not be effective until the report is 
submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


   Section 331--Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Depot Maintenance

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2007, on 
criteria used when a nuclear attack submarine is sent for 
maintenance to a facility other than a facility located at the 
homeport of the submarine.

            Section 332--Report on Navy Fleet Response Plan

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2006, on 
the Navy Fleet Response Plan. The committee expects the report 
would include assessments from senior enlisted officers, for 
example chief engineers and command master chiefs, who served 
on aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers that participated 
in the Fleet Response Plan regarding the following:
          (1) material condition of the ship;
          (2) maintenance of the ship;
          (3) en-route training;
          (4) professional development training available on 
        the ship;
          (5) combat skill training;
          (6) personnel assignments and manning;
          (7) retention of personnel; and
          (8) suggestions for improvement.
    This section would also require the Comptroller General to 
submit a review of the Secretary of the Navy report to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services that includes a recommendation on the extension 
of the Fleet Response Plan to expeditionary strike groups by 
March 15, 2007. Finally, this section would postpone the 
expansion of the Fleet Response Plan beyond the carrier strike 
groups until October 1, 2007.
    The committee has concerns regarding expansion of the Fleet 
Response Plan to other ships beyond those in a carrier strike 
group. The committee notes the Navy has neither fully tested 
and evaluated the Fleet Response Plan nor formally implemented 
the required operational, training and personnel directives to 
manage this program.

   Section 333--Report on Navy Surface Ship Rotational Crew Programs

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2007, on ship 
rotational crew experiments. This section would also require 
the Comptroller General to submit an assessment of the 
Secretary of Navy's report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by July 15, 
2007.
    This section would further require the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office to submit a report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services that examines long-term benefits and costs of surface 
ship crew rotational programs by July 15, 2007. Finally, this 
section would postpone the implementation of any new surface 
ship rotational crew experiment or program until October 1, 
2009.
    The committee is concerned about the expansion of the 
surface ship rotation crew program formally known as Sea Swap 
to other surface ships. Potential disadvantages of Sea Swap 
include extensive wear and tear on the deployed ship due to a 
lengthy period of time at sea, reduced sense of crew ownership 
of a given ship, reduced opportunities for transit port calls 
and a negative impact on crew morale and retention.

         Section 334--Report on Army Live-Fire Ranges in Hawaii

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
submit a report to Congress by March 1, 2007, on the adequacy 
of live-fire training facilities in the state of Hawaii in 
relation to current and future training requirements, and plans 
for modifications or additions to the live-fire training 
infrastructure in Hawaii.

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

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within one year of enactment 
of this Act, on joint standards and protocols for access 
control systems at Department of Defense (DOD) installations. 
The report would contain an assessment of whether the 
establishment of joint standards and protocols for access 
control at DOD installations would improve access control 
across all installations by providing greater consistency and 
improved force protection.

 Section 336--Report on Personnel Security Investigations for Industry 
                and National Industrial Security Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit, within 90 days of enactment, a report on the future 
requirements of the Department of Defense with respect to the 
Personnel Security Investigations for Industry and the National 
Security Investigations for Industry Security Program of the 
Defense Security Service. The report would be delivered to the 
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the 
Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives.
    This report would include an accounting of clearance 
investigations completed, the number of each type of clearance 
granted, the unit cost of each clearance granted, the unit cost 
to the Department of Defense of each security clearance 
granted, the amount of any fee or surcharge paid by the Office 
of Personnel Management as a result of conducting a personnel 
security clearance investigation, a description of the 
procedures used to estimate future investigations to be 
performed, and a plan for meeting increased demand of 
clearances. It would also require subsequent semi-annual 
reports on future funding requirements, backlog size, and 
progress toward meeting implemented changes in the 
investigation process. Lastly, it would require the Government 
Accountability Office to examine the Department's plan and to 
conduct an independent assessment after the initial report is 
submitted by the Department of Defense.
    The Committee recommends that the Office of Management and 
Budget further open and extend its review and reform efforts 
for the security clearance process to include the appropriate 
external expert sources such as defense contractors, academic 
institutions, workforce providers, and research and development 
organizations to provide intelligence and resources to assist 
in the development of a new clear human capital management 
system, as current process does not fully address the needs and 
impacts of the institutions and organizations outside of the 
federal government and related agencies.
    The committee is disappointed by an announcement that the 
Defense Security Service has suspended the processing of new 
clearances and is concerned about the potential impact on 
national security and the defense industrial base. The 
committee is concerned by the Defense Security Service's 
failure to warn Congress of this failure in advance so that the 
problem might have been averted. The committee remains 
committed to finding a solution to the problem of clearance 
investigations as soon as possible.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


 Section 341--Department of Defense Strategic Policy on Prepositioning 
                       of Materiel and Equipment

    This section would amend chapter 131 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to establish a 
comprehensive approach to Department of Defense (DOD) 
prepositioning programs. This section would also limit the 
diversion of materiel and equipment from prepositioned stocks 
except for the purpose of supporting a contingency operation, 
or in accordance with a change to the prepositioning policy 
required under this section. This section would require the 
Secretary to notify the congressional defense committees before 
implementing or changing the prepositioning policy. Finally, 
this section would require the Secretary to establish the 
prepositioning policy within six months after the enactment of 
this Act.
    The committee recognizes that prepositioned materiel offers 
significant strategic flexibility, as demonstrated in Operation 
Iraqi Freedom. The committee is concerned, however, that there 
is a lack of clear DOD policy to guide the prepositioning 
programs of the services. Furthermore, the committee notes that 
the Secretary of Defense has failed to report on DOD 
prepositioned equipment and materiel as required in section 
1046 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 
of Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
    Additionally, the committee is discouraged by recent 
decisions regarding Army prepositioned stocks. For example, the 
Army recently programmed the download of an entirebrigade set 
from its afloat prepositioned combat capability. Furthermore, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before the 
Subcommittees on Readiness and Tactical Air and Land Forces on March 
30, 2006, that the Army is making plans to reduce its contractor 
workforce in Charleston, South Carolina, where it performs the 
maintenance on its afloat stocks. GAO also noted that the Army has a 
large military construction project well underway at a site in Italy, 
but the Army's draft prepositioning strategy identifies no significant 
prepositioning mission in Europe. The committee believes these recent 
changes to the Army prepositioning program, together with the continued 
challenge of maintaining the combat capability of the Army 
prepositioned stocks in Korea and Southwest Asia, contribute to a 
severe underinvestment in these assets.

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

    This section would amend section 2583 of title 10, United 
States Code to include horses owned by the Department of 
Defense. The committee notes that currently private adoption of 
caisson horses from the 1st Battalion, 3rd United States 
Infantry Regiment is prohibited. The committee notes the 
contributions of these animals and their service to the public 
good.

Section 343--Sale and Use of Proceeds of Recyclable Munitions Materials

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
establish a separate program to sell recyclable munitions 
materials resulting from the demilitarization of conventional 
military munitions such as brass, scrap metal, propellants, and 
explosives. Furthermore, this section would credit the proceeds 
from the sales to the funds available to the Army for 
reclamation, recycling, and reuse of conventional military 
munitions. This process would be consistent with the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) and its 
implementing regulations.

               Section 344--Capital Security Cost Sharing

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
perform an annual accounting of Department of Defense (DOD) 
overseas staffing requirements in order to reconcile cost-
sharing fees levied by the Secretary of State, in accordance 
with section 629(e)(1) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2005 (Public Law 108-447).

 Section 345--Prioritization of Funds Within Navy Mission Operations, 
  Ship Maintenance, Combat Support Forces, and Weapons System Support

    This section would require the Secretary of Navy to ensure 
that 100 percent of the requirements for steaming days per 
quarter for deployed and non-deployed ship operations and 100 
percent of the projected ship and air depot maintenance 
workload are funded before funds appropriated to the Department 
of Navy for operation and maintenance may be expended for the 
Navy Expeditionary Combat Command. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Navy to submit a report with the 
annual budget request that certifies these requirements are 
fully funded.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Navy has 
funded ship and air operations and depot maintenance below the 
operational requirements. For example, ship operation funding 
for deployed ships was funded at 71 percent of the requirement. 
Accordingly, carrier strike groups and expeditionary strike 
groups will be unable to fully execute missions in their 
assigned area of responsibility.
    Against this backdrop, the committee has learned that the 
Department of Navy has expanded its role and function to ground 
and river combat missions. The Navy Expeditionary Combat 
Command was established on January 13, 2006, in order to expand 
the Navy's capabilities for participating in the global war on 
terrorism. The Navy will deploy Riverine Group 1 to patrol the 
waterways of Baghdad, Iraq in 2007. At the moment, these 
sailors have no boats, no manuals, and no past mission to draw 
experience from before they engage in combat operations.
    While the committee understands the Department of Navy's 
desire to expand its role from the sea to the river and land, 
we have concerns that the traditional role and mission of the 
Navy is not being adequately funded.

  Section 346--Prioritization of Funds Within Army Reconstitution and 
                             Transformation

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
fully fund in each fiscal year after fiscal year 2007 the reset 
of equipment used in the global war on terrorism, the 
fulfillment of equipment requirements for units transforming to 
modularity, and the reconstitution of prepositioned stocks. 
This section would require the Secretary to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees at the time the budget 
request is transmitted to Congress. This report would provide 
information on the funding priorities described in this section 
and would be required annually until the requirements of these 
priorities are met. This section would also limit to $2.85 
billion the funds to be appropriated in any fiscal year after 
fiscal year 2007 for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) until the 
funding priorities described in this section are met in that 
fiscal year. If the Army does not meet this requirement, this 
section would require funds that were not expended for FCS to 
be used for the identified funding priorities.
    For the purposes of this section, the requirements of the 
identified funding priorities shall be based on the following 
guidelines. The Army has testified, based on equipment combat 
losses and battle damage, that the amount needed in fiscal year 
2006 to repair, recapitalize, and replace equipment used in the 
global war on terrorism is $13.5 billion. The committee is also 
aware that a recent cost estimate to payback equipment to the 
reserve component in accordance with Department of Defense 
Directive 1225.6 is $4.8 billion. The committee assumes that 
the current use of equipment in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom will continue at the same level as 
experienced in fiscal year 2006. Therefore, the committee 
calculates that at least $72.3 billion over the fiscal year 
2008 Future Years Defense Program would be required to 
adequately fund equipment reset in both the active and reserve 
components.
    The committee considers the equipment requirements for 
units transforming to modularity to be those that were 
described in the Modular Force Initiative report submitted to 
Congress in March 2006. Additionally, the committee expects the 
Army to include the procurement of M1A2 Abrams SEP tanks and 
Bradley Fighting Vehicle A3s in the funding requirements for 
modularity. The cost estimate for equipment requirements for 
modularity stated in this section includes this additional 
requirement.
    The committee also considers the requirement for the 
reconstitution of Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) to be 
consistent with the materiel configuration outlined in APS 
Strategy 2012 or a subsequent strategy created in accordance 
with section 2229 of title 10, United States Code, a section 
added to title 10 in another section of this Act.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to believe that the manpower levels 
in the budget request for the active components of the Army and 
the Marine Corps are too low for the requirements placed on 
those services by the national security strategy. Beginning 
with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003, as passed by the House of Representatives, the committee 
has recommended active end strength levels, especially for the 
Army, greater than those requested. Similarly, the committee's 
recommendations for fiscal year 2007 increase the active Army 
end strength by six percent, and the Marine Corps end strength 
by nearly three percent above the budget request. In 
recognition of the integral roles and missions performed by the 
reserve components, the committee commends and supports the 
decision by the Secretary of the Army and the chief of staff of 
the Army to request an Army National Guard end strength of 
350,000, and recommends an increase of $789.0 million in Army 
National Guard personnel, operations and maintenance, defense 
health and procurement accounts to support the Army 
leadership's request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                       Subtitle A--Active Forces


              Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 
30, 2007:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2007                    Change from
                                            FY 2006    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2007        FY 2006
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..................................         512,400      482,400         512,400       30,000               0
Navy..................................         352,700      340,700         340,700            0         -12,000
USMC..................................         179,000      175,000         180,000        5,000           1,000
Air Force.............................         357,400      334,200         334,200            0         -23,200
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD...............................       1,401,500    1,332,300       1,367,300       35,000         -34,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authorizations contained in this section for the Army 
and Marine Corps exceed by 30,000 and 5,000 respectively the 
end strengths for those services requested in the budget 
because the committee does not believe that the budget request 
provided adequate manning levels for the Army and Marine Corps. 
Additional funding for these increases is provided in title XV 
of the bill.

  Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum 
                                 Levels

    This section would establish new minimum active duty end 
strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force as of 
September 30, 2007. The committee recommends 504,400 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Army. The minimum 
strengths of the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are identical 
to the committee recommendations for those services shown in 
section 401.

  Section 403--Additional Authority for Increases of Army and Marine 
     Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009

    This section would authorize additional increases of active 
duty end strength for the Army and for the Marine Corps in 
fiscal years 2008 and 2009 above the strengths authorized for 
those services in fiscal year 2007. Over the two-year period, 
the Army would be authorized to increase active duty end 
strength up to a total of 532,400, and the Marine Corps would 
be authorized to increase active duty end strength to 184,000.

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces


            Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for selected reserve personnel, including the end strength for 
reserves on active duty in support of the reserves, as of 
September 30, 2007:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2007                    Change from
                                            FY 2006    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2007        FY 2006
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................         350,000      350,000         350,000            0               0
Army Reserve..........................         205,000      200,000         200,000            0          -5,000
Navy Reserve..........................          73,100       71,300          71,300            0          -1,800
Marine Corps Reserve..................          39,600       39,600          39,600            0               0
Air National Guard....................         106,800      107,000         107,000            0             200
Air Force Reserve.....................          74,000       74,900          74,900            0             900
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................         848,500      842,800         842,800            0          -5,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Reserve...................          10,000       10,000          10,000            0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee notes that subsequent to the receipt of the 
budget request, which proposed a fiscal year 2007 end strength 
for the Army National Guard of 332,900, the Secretary of 
Defense submitted a revised Army National Guard end strength 
authorization of 350,000 for fiscal year 2007. The committee 
recommendation supports that higher authorization and provides 
the required additional funding of $471.0 million in the 
authorizations of appropriations for military personnel, 
operations and maintenance and defense health. Title I of this 
Act also recommends an additional $318.0 million for Army 
National Guard procurement to support the recommended end 
strength.

 Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of 
                         the Reserve Components

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of 
September 30, 2007:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2007                    Change from
                                            FY 2006    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2007        FY 2006
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................          27,396       27,441          28,165          724             769
Army Reserve..........................          15,270       15,416          15,416            0             146
Naval Reserve.........................          13,392       12,564          12,564            0            -828
Marine Corps Reserve..................           2,261        2,261           2,261            0               0
Air National Guard....................          13,123       13,206          13,291           85             168
Air Force Reserve.....................           2,290        2,707           2,707            0             417
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................          73,732       73,595          74,404          809             672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee's recommendation in section 411 would support 
the Secretary of Defense's revised request for an end strength 
higher than what was initially requested for fiscal year 2007 
for the Army National Guard. Consistent with that 
recommendation, the committee also recommends an increase in 
the end strength of Army National Guard personnel on active 
duty in support of that component. Furthermore, the committee 
recommends an increase of 85 Air National Guard personnel to 
improve the capability of the E-8C Joint Surveillance Target 
Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) to support the combatant 
commanders. In title XV of this Act, the committee recommends 
the funding for this Air National Guard increase.

   Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 
2007:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2007                    Change from
                                            FY 2006    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee
                                            (floor)       Request    recommendation    FY 2007        FY 2006
                                                                         (floor)       request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................          25,563       26,050          27,615        1,565           2,052
Army Reserve..........................           7,649        7,912           7,912            0             263
Air National Guard....................          22,971       23,255          23,255            0             284
Air Force Reserve.....................           9,852       10,124          10,124            0             272
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................          66,035       67,341          68,906        1,565           2,871
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee's recommendation in section 411 would support 
the Secretary of Defense's revised request for an end strength 
higher than what was initially requested for fiscal year 2007 
for the Army National Guard. Consistent with that 
recommendation, the committee also recommends an increase in 
the end strength of Army National Guard military technicians 
(dual status). The committee's recommendation would provide for 
a 4.3 percent growth in the strength of military technicians 
above the levels authorized in fiscal year 2006.

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

    This section would establish the maximum end strengths for 
the reserve components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual 
status technicians as of September 30, 2007:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2006                    Change from
                                            FY 2005    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2006        FY 2005
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................           1,600        1,600           1,600            0               0
Army Reserve695.......................             595          595             595            0            -100
Air National Guard....................             350          350             350            0               0
Air Force Reserve.....................              90           90              90            0               0
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................           2,735        2,635           2,635            0            -100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on 
                  Active Duty for Operational Support

    This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) 
of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of reserve 
component personnel who may be on active duty or full-time 
national guard duty during fiscal year 2007 to provide 
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count 
against the end strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2007                    Change from
                                            FY 2006    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2007        FY 2006
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................          17,000       17,000          17,000            0               0
Army Reserve..........................          13,000       13,000          13,000            0               0
Naval Reserve.........................           6,200        6,200           6,200            0               0
Marine Corps Reserve..................           3,000        3,000           3,000            0               0
Air National Guard....................          16,000       16,000          16,000            0               0
Air Force Reserve.....................          14,000       14,000          14,000            0               0
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................          69,200       69,200          69,200            0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations


                    Section 421--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize $1,098.2 million to be 
appropriated for military personnel. This authorization of 
appropriations reflects both reductions and increases to the 
budget request for military personnel that are itemized below:

Military personnel

                                        Amount (in thousands of dollars)
H411 ARNG: Restore funding to support 350,000 end 
    strength............................................         189,000
H411 ARNG: Restore TRICARE accrual funding..............          62,000
H601 Additional 0.5% basic pay raise....................         300,000
H615 Expanded eligibility of dental officers for special 
    pay.................................................           4,000
H623: Incentives for high-demand, low density skills....           5,000
H632 Ship second privately owned vehicle to non-foreign 
    overseas areas......................................          30,000
Army: Recruiting and retention bonuses..................         100,000
Army: Expanded Army early commissioning program 
    (Skelton)...........................................           3,500
USAR: Army-wide office basic course funding.............          39,200
Navy: Deferred PCS (CNO UFR)............................         100,000
Air Guard: Recruiting and retention bonuses.............          59,000
Leg. proposal not adopted: Extend basic pay table to 40 
    years of service....................................          -4,000
Targeted pay raise savings due to 0.5% basic pay 
    increase............................................          -5,000
Unexpended MILPERS balances.............................      -1,839,000

               Section 422--Armed Forces Retirement Home

    This section would authorize $54.8 million to be 
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home during fiscal year 2007.

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee's recommendations reflect heavily the views 
and issues raised by servicemembers to committee Members and 
staff during oversight visits in the United States, in the 
combat zones of Southwest Asia, and across the world. 
Furthermore, the recommendations in this title represent the 
committee's continuing commitment to support the dedicated, 
exceptional Americans who serve in the armed forces. The 
committee recognizes that the active duty, national guard, and 
reserve members serving today are performing superbly, 
notwithstanding the many stresses of the global war on 
terrorism. The committee trusts that the recommendations made 
here will help to relieve some of that stress and also 
recognize the significant sacrifices that take place each day 
in the lives of the men and women who serve in uniform, and in 
the lives of the families that support them.
    A major focus of this title involves not only 
servicemembers who have been wounded or injured, but also the 
surviving family members of those who have died or been 
seriously injured in service. Such focus continues the 
committee's initiatives enacted in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to 
improve programs that directly affect the injured, the wounded 
and the survivors. Therefore, the committee recommends the 
following:
          (1) The remains of military personnel who die during 
        combat operations or who die of non-combat related 
        injuries in the theater of combat, would be moved by 
        dedicated aircraft, from Dover Air Force Base, 
        Delaware, to the military airfield nearest to the 
        servicemember's place of interment and would be 
        accompanied by military personnel who would render 
        military honors at the destination airfield.
          (2) The military services' physical evaluation board 
        (PEB) process would be reformed to address concerns of 
        military members, particularly reserve component 
        members, about the consistency and timeliness of PEB 
        decisions, the ability of members to gain information 
        about PEB procedures, and the rationale supporting 
        board decisions.
          (3) The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to 
        provide computer/electronic assistive technology, 
        devices, and technology services to military personnel 
        who have sustained a severe or debilitating illness or 
        injury while serving in support of a contingency 
        operation and keep those devices after they separate 
        from the military.
    The reserve components constitute another major focus of 
this title. Their roles and responsibilities have changed 
dramatically since the start of the global war on terrorism and 
the committee believes it is necessary to adjust existing 
authorities and create new authorities to better reflect the 
nation's continuing reliance on the national guard and the 
reserves. Therefore, the committee recommends:
          (1) New authority to enable the mobilization of 
        members of the reserve components to provide assistance 
        in serious natural or manmade disasters.
          (2) An extension from 270 days to 365 days the 
        maximum period of mobilization under what is known as 
        the President's Selected Reserve Call-up authority.
          (3) New authority that formally authorizes current 
        practices in which full-time national guard and reserve 
        members are performing many additional functions beyond 
        their traditional support to the reserve components. 
        Such additional functions include instructing and 
        training active duty members, Department of Defense 
        civilians and foreign military personnel in the United 
        States.
          (4) New authority that would authorize State 
        governors, under title 32, United States Code, to 
        mobilize national guard forces to support operational 
        missions taken at the request of the President or the 
        Secretary of Defense, and to perform training 
        operations and missions assigned by the secretaries of 
        the Army or Air Force.
    Finally, in this title, the committee makes recommendations 
to improve the quality of the service and the quality of life 
of servicemembers and their families and to recognize that 
service. Those recommendations include the following:
          (1) Supplementary funding, totaling $65.0 million, 
        for local educational agencies that are heavily 
        impacted by the attendance of military dependents or 
        that experience significant increases or decreases in 
        the average daily attendance of military dependent 
        students due to military force structure changes.
          (2) Permanent authority for the military services, 
        especially the Army, to reduce from 24 months to 18 
        months the minimum time-in-grade required for promotion 
        from 1st lieutenant to captain, using an Army example. 
        This authority would assist the military departments in 
        meeting long-term unit and operational requirements.
          (3) Improved transition assistance for servicemembers 
        leaving active duty by directing that the Secretary of 
        Defense require attendance at the Department of Labor 
        transition assistance programs of all who had not 
        previously attended.
          (4) Authorization of a Cold War Victory Medal that 
        would be issued upon the application of an eligible 
        enlisted member, officer, or warrant officer who served 
        during the Cold War; and the authorization of the award 
        of the Purple Heart to members of the armed forces who 
        died as prisoners of war in captivity, or who died 
        after captivity due to illness or injury sustained 
        while a prisoner of war.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                       Academy Language Training

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
placed great emphasis on improving the strategic language 
posture of the United States. The military academies of the 
United States are implementing new plans to strengthen their 
current programs. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to report on the 
current state of language programs and the plans for 
implementing a strategic language development program at the 
United States Military Academy, the United States Naval 
Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy. In 
consultation with the superintendents of each academy, the 
secretaries should provide data on the number of students 
participating in language training, the languages in which they 
are participating, levels of proficiency, and language classes 
offered. In addition, the superintendents should identify their 
plans for expanding foreign language programs, provide an 
update on their current implementation of the language 
initiatives included in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, 
and describe the costs required for the programs.
    The committee directs the Secretaries to submit their plans 
for the expansion of language programs and the resource 
requirements to accomplish them to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Closure of Article 32 Investigations in Cases of Sexual Assault or 
                           Domestic Violence

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the procedures used in pretrial investigations under Article 32 
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The purpose of the 
review is to identify additional criteria and factors for 
inclusion in the Manual for Courts-Martial that would better 
serve to guide commanders and investigating officers, in cases 
of sexual assault and domestic violence, in determining when, 
and to what extent, such Article 32 proceedings should be 
closed to spectators, the media, and others in order to protect 
witnesses and victims of crime against inappropriate treatment, 
intimidation, or embarrassment, or from unwarranted publicity 
or sensationalism resulting from their role in testifying or 
providing evidence in the investigation. The review shall be 
conducted with the particular interests in mind for victims of 
sexual assault and domestic violence and the unique concerns 
that may be associated with or accompany their testimony in a 
public forum, as well as for all other victims and witnesses 
who may provide less than complete testimony in a public 
setting due to embarrassment or timidity. In conducting the 
review, the Secretary should also consider the recommendation 
made on this matter in the June 2005 ``Report of The Defense 
Task Force on Sexual Harassment & Violence at the Military 
Service Academies'' that Congress should amend Title 10 of the 
U.S. Code regarding Article 32 to explicitly permit commanders 
to close the hearings to the public. The Secretary should also 
consider, in this review, prior precedent regarding the closing 
of Article 32 proceedings to the public in decisions of the 
United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for 
the Armed Forces, and the Military Departments' Courts of 
Criminal Appeals. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to present to the House Committee on Armed Services and 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services a report on the results 
of this review and any recommendations for change to the Manual 
for Courts-Martial no later than April 15, 2007.

 Department of the Navy Personal Responsibility and Values: Education 
                          and Training Program

    The Committee is aware that the Navy's Personal 
Responsibility and Values: Education and Training (PREVENT) 
program has enjoyed great success in addressing alcohol and 
drug abuse issues among new recruits and enlisted sailors 
between the ages of 18-26. The committee is impressed that the 
Navy is using the PREVENT program to empower junior members to 
take responsibility for their lives by making positive choices 
designed to enhance personal and professional effectiveness. 
Specifically, the committee notes that the program gives 
sailors the tools they need to avoid, reduce, or eliminate 
risky, self-destructive behaviors such as alcohol and substance 
abuse that adversely impact Navy readiness and performance.
    Given the positive outcomes this program has achieved in 
the lives of sailors and its contributions to readiness and 
mission performance, the committee urges the Secretary of the 
Navy to increase funding for this program to ensure that 
additional Navy personnel have the opportunity to participate. 
Additionally, the committee recommends that the Secretary 
extend the benefits of participation in the PREVENT program to 
enlisted personnel in the Marine Corps. Accordingly, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to study the 
feasibility of allocating additional funding to the PREVENT 
program and extending eligibility to Marine Corps personnel.
    The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings 
and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.

 Educational Opportunities in Interagency Coordination at the Military 
                              War Colleges

    The committee believes that improving interagency 
coordination is vital to U.S. national security, and that the 
military war colleges should provide educational opportunities 
in the area of interagency coordination. The committee commends 
the Department on the steps it has already taken to incorporate 
the subject of interagency coordination in its professional 
educational activities but believes that opportunities may 
exist to increase the interagency component in those 
educational activities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services, by April 1, 2007, a report 
on the steps the military war colleges should take to provide 
educational opportunities in the area of interagency 
coordination. The report shall address the advisability of 
creating faculty positions or chairs in each war college to 
allow faculty representation from the Department of Justice, 
the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, 
and agencies under the oversight of the Director of National 
Intelligence. The report shall include estimates of the cost of 
implementing the findings of the report.

             Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies

    The Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies (JAMRS) 
program is the Department of Defense's (DOD) corporate level 
effort to bolster the effectiveness of the recruiting programs 
conducted by the military services. Among its principal 
initiatives is a campaign to build advocacy and support among 
parents, teachers, and coaches for service to the nation by 
ensuring that these key influencers of youth have the facts 
about military service and are able to engage in conversations 
with youth about serving the nation in the military. The 
committee has received testimony from a wide range of senior 
DOD personnel regarding the challenges recruiters face in 
convincing youth influencers about the value of service to the 
nation. The committee notes that despite such testimony, the 
budget request for JAMRS has not increased over the last two 
years, remaining at $7.0 million. The committee believes that 
this funding level is insufficient and urges the Secretary of 
Defense to substantially increase future funding for JAMRS.

              Operation of Army Air Ambulance Detachments

    The committee understands that the Army will discontinue 
the operation of the Army air ambulance detachment at Fort 
Drum, New York, and replace the military capability with a 
contracted air ambulance service to support only the 
installation needs. Replacing the military air ambulance 
capability with a contracted, on-call civilian service could 
potentially result in reduced aeromedical evacuation capability 
and responsiveness for on-post emergencies and accidents. 
Furthermore, the loss of the military air ambulance unit means 
the end of military support under the Military Assistance to 
Safety and Traffic (MAST) program. As a result, the region 
surrounding Fort Drum will face a devastating loss of emergency 
response capability. Providing at least an equal replacement 
capability, in a cost-effective manner, will be extremely 
difficult, because of the relative isolation of the 
installation and the climatic challenges of the region. Given 
the potential negative impact on both the installation and the 
region, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
continue to provide military air ambulance support to the Fort 
Drum installation, as well as to support to the region 
surrounding the installation under the MAST program. To 
evaluate any future decision regarding the continuation of 
military air ambulance support at Fort Drum, the committee also 
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the committee with 
the following:
          (1) The plan for stationing air ambulance detachments 
        at U.S. military installations and the discreet 
        criteria used to determine that stationing;
          (2) A report on the cost-effectiveness and changes in 
        medical response factors at other installations where 
        Army air ambulance detachments have been replaced by 
        contracted capabilities; and
          (3) A review of the potential contracting out options 
        at Fort Drum, to include, an analysis of the 
        feasibility of an umbrella contract for aeromedical 
        evacuation that provides not only support to Fort Drum, 
        but also to the region.

       Permanent Identification Cards for Adult Disabled Children

    The committee is concerned by reports that military members 
with permanently disabled dependent children are required to 
periodically renew identification cards for their children. 
This process is especially cumbersome and demanding for elderly 
parents of adult children who must meet the challenge of the 
verification process repeatedly over the course of many years. 
The committee believes that there is an option to develop a 
procedure to grant permanent identification cards for adult 
children without significant risk to the integrity of the 
military identification system. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of 
providing discretionary authority to the secretaries concerned 
to grant permanent military identification cards to adult 
children of military members when disabilities can be medically 
validated as permanent and financial support qualification can 
be assessed as being of indefinite duration.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on 
his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services.

                      Personnel Plan for Linguists

    The committee continues to be very concerned about the need 
to develop a comprehensive plan for better management of both 
officer and enlisted linguists in the armed forces. The 
committee believes that current personnel programs fail to 
provide linguists adequate incentives to achieve their full 
potential in language and cultural skills and sufficient 
promotion opportunities within the linguist career path. The 
committee is particularly concerned that enlisted members are 
denied promotion opportunities to senior noncommissioned 
officer grades. The committee believes that the military 
departments should invest sufficient grade structure in the 
services' career paths for linguists to allow highly skilled 
members to compete for promotion within their linguist 
specialties without feeling that they must either change their 
specialty to improve their promotion opportunity or remain a 
linguist and sacrifice their promotion potential. The committee 
anxiously awaits the Secretary's report on the need for a 
personnel plan for linguists in the armed forces, required by 
section 581 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and trusts that it will 
address the Committee's concerns about the promotion of 
linguists.

           Process for Restructuring the Army National Guard

    The Army's active, reserve, and national guard are integral 
partners in the sustained success of the ``one'' Army concept. 
The committee, therefore, is concerned that force structure 
changes proposed in December 2005 would have had a profound 
impact on the national guard if developed without the active 
participation of, or consultation with, the Army National 
Guard. The committee strongly believes that any plan to 
restructure the Army National Guard should be achieved through 
a transparent and inclusive process. The National Guard Bureau 
and the Adjutants General should be full partners in the 
development of Army National Guard transformation plans. The 
committee urges senior Army leadership, the National Guard 
Bureau, and the Adjutants General to confer jointly to develop 
a process to ensure the Army National Guard is properly 
postured, prepared, and equipped to meet its warfighting 
requirements, as well as its homeland defense and emergency 
response requirements.

        Social Security Numbers on Military Identification Cards

    The committee is aware that many service members are 
concerned that the inclusion of their social security numbers 
on military identification cards places them at greater risk of 
identity theft. Although the committee recognizes that a new 
generation of identity cards may eliminate this risk in the 
future, there would seem to be a more urgent need for the 
Department of Defense to develop an alternative that would 
allow servicemembers to request that the social security number 
be eliminated from their identification cards or another number 
be substituted for the social security number. The committee 
notes that other State and local governments have responded to 
the increasing risk of identity theft with similar alternative 
procedures. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to study the feasibility of developing an alternative 
process that would allow servicemembers to immediately request 
that their military identification cards do not include their 
social security numbers.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on 
his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services.

                         Trafficking in Persons

    The committee has followed with interest the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) response to the crime of human trafficking. The 
Committee appreciates the steps that the DOD and various 
combatant commanders have taken to address human trafficking 
since 2002. The Secretary of Defense's strongly worded memo of 
September 16, 2004 entitled ``Combating Trafficking in 
Persons,'' was particularly welcome. Such unequivocal 
leadership is essential for setting standards and creating a 
culture that deters any sort of human trafficking. Further, the 
committee believes that actions must be taken by DOD to 
implement the zero tolerance policy mandated by the Secretary 
of Defense. To this end, the committee directs the following:
          (1) The Secretary of Defense is to ensure that 
        combatant commanders designate a person on their 
        respective staffs to carry out anti-trafficking 
        programs and oversee implementation of OSD anti-
        trafficking directives; and
          (2) Military criminal investigators and prosecutors 
        be trained on how to use existing provisions in the 
        Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Manual for 
        Courts-Martial, and the Military Extraterritorial 
        Jurisdiction Act to identify and prosecute human 
        trafficking cases;
          (3) The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice 
        study whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 
        Manual for Courts-Martial are adequate to proscribe 
        trafficking in persons by military personnel; and
          (4) The Office of the Secretary of Defense shall 
        compile and disseminate to combatant commanders best 
        practices to combat trafficking, particularly those 
        which have already been used effectively by one or more 
        combatant commander.

 Victim Service Organization Privilege in Cases Arising Under Uniform 
                        Code of Military Justice

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the issue of privileged or protected communications made by 
victims of sexual assaults to health care providers and victim 
advocates. The purpose of the review is to identify whether 
potential changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial should be 
made to extend the privileges that are already included within 
Section V of the Military Rules of Evidence to include heath 
care providers and victim advocates.
    This review should include:
          (1) Existing privileged or protected communications 
        that currently exist in Federal and state law and the 
        Manual for Courts-Martial for both victim advocates, 
        which include any representative of a victim service 
        organization, and health care providers, or a 
        representative of a health care provider, and the 
        reasoning behind those privileges;
          (2) Definitions and qualifications of victims 
        advocates and or health care providers, as defined 
        above; especially the education and training that is 
        involved in order to become a victim advocate or health 
        care provider; and whether those qualifications should 
        be a factor in defining the privilege.
          (3) The nature of the relationship between the 
        victim, victims advocate and health care provider.
          (4) The role and responsibilities of the victim 
        advocate.
          (5) The extent to which the privilege can be claimed 
        by individuals other than the victim, victims advocate 
        and health care professionals.
          (6) Whether these individuals are military personnel 
        or civilians and whether there are any state licensing 
        requirements for these positions. If there are state 
        licensing requirements or if individuals are licensed 
        in a state then the review should include what the 
        state licensing requirements entail and whether or not 
        any state requirements could conflict if privileged 
        communication were to be extended to victim advocates 
        and health care providers.
          (7) An analysis of the recommendation made on this 
        matter in the June 2005 ``Report of The Defense Task 
        Force on Sexual Harassment & Violence at the Military 
        Service Academies'' that Congress should create a 
        statutory privilege protecting communications made by 
        victims of sexual assault to health care providers and 
        victim advocates. This recommendation stated that the 
        privilege should extend to both medical and mental 
        health care providers and to those victim advocates 
        designated and trained to perform that duty in a manner 
        prescribed by Department of Defense regulation.
          (8) A review of prior precedent regarding privilege 
        and the rights of the accused, weighing the accused 
        rights and the rights of the victim in decisions of the 
        United States Supreme Court, United States Court of 
        Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the Military 
        Departments' Courts of Criminal Appeals.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to present 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services a report on the results of this 
review and any recommendations for change to the Manual for 
Courts-Martial no later than April 15, 2007.

       Web-based Enhancement to Support Family Readiness Programs

    The committee commends the Department of Defense and the 
military services for their efforts to improve family support 
programs for both active duty and reserve families. However, 
the committee is concerned that extended and multiple 
deployments may have an adverse impact on the stability of 
military families and believes the services should explore 
efforts to use new technologies to further enhance outreach and 
support to such families. It has been shown that the use of 
volunteer-based family support groups has been very effective 
in helping to build self-sufficient families and provide 
critical support in times of need. The committee understands 
that the Army is using a new technology called the Virtual 
Family Readiness Group that is proving to be an effective tool 
for family support groups to communicate and collaborate across 
geographic, temporal and other boundaries such as geography, 
war zones, languages, installations, and deployments. The 
committee urges the other services to explore using similar 
interactive technology to support their family readiness teams 
to improve efficiency and create more effective outreach 
avenues for military families particularly during this period 
of high deployment tempo.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy


     Section 501--Authorized Strength of Navy Reserve Flag Officers

    This section, while retaining the authorized strength of 
Navy Reserve flag officers at 48, would eliminate existing 
limitations on the distribution and allocation of those flag 
officers. Present law mandates a numerical boundary between the 
line and staff corps and makes specific flag officer 
allocations among the staff corps elements.

 Section 502--Standardization of Grade of Senior Dental Officer of the 
        Air Force with that of Senior Dental Officer of the Army

    This section would require that the officer serving as the 
senior dental officer in the Air Force be appointed in the 
grade of major general. This is the same grade to which the 
officer serving as the Chief of the Dental Corps in the Army is 
appointed.

           Section 503--Management of Chief Warrant Officers

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to 
retain Chief Warrant Officers, W-4, after twice failing to be 
promoted using procedures prescribed by the secretary without a 
mandatory selective continuation board, as required under 
current law. This section would also increase the years of 
service as a warrant officer that would require mandatory 
retirement from 24 to 30 years of service.

 Section 504--Reduction in Time-in-Grade Requirement for Promotion to 
Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and Lieutenant in the 
                                  Navy

    This section would make permanent the authority to reduce 
from 24 months to 18 months the minimum time-in-grade required 
as an 0-2 before being eligible for promotion to the grade of 
0-3.

      Section 505--Military Status of Officers Serving in Certain 
                    Intelligence Community Positions

    This section would clarify that general and flag officers 
assigned to senior level positions within the Central 
Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence shall not be subject to the supervision or control 
of the Secretary of Defense and shall not exercise supervision 
or control over Department of Defense personnel. This section 
would further clarify that the assignment of an officer to such 
a position would not affect the officer's status, grade, rank, 
compensation, rights, or benefits and that officer's military 
pay and allowances would be reimbursed to the Department of 
Defense from funds available to the Director, Central 
Intelligence Agency or the Director of National Intelligence, 
as appropriate.

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management


          Section 511--Revisions to Reserve Call-up Authority

    This section would extend from 270 days to 365 days the 
duration of service for members of the Selected Reserve and 
Individual Ready Reserve involuntarily called to active duty to 
support operational missions. This section would also permit 
the President to use this authority to order reserve component 
members to active duty to provide assistance in serious natural 
or manmade disasters, accidents or catastrophes that occur in 
the United States, its territories and possessions, the 
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This 
section would also establish criteria that the Secretary of 
Defense must consider to ensure the fair treatment of reserve 
component personnel before mobilizing them under this 
authority.

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

    This section would authorize reserve retirement credit for 
members of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard 
who were mobilized in a State active duty status in response to 
the declaration of federal emergencies in the counties of the 
State of New Jersey surrounding New York City following the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

   Section 513--Report on Private Sector Promotion and Constructive 
 Termination of Members of the Reserve Components Called or Ordered to 
                             Active Service

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report on the post-mobilization effects on the private sector 
employment of members of the reserve components. Thus, this 
section would require the secretary to provide data, based on 
information voluntarily provided by reserve component members, 
not only on post-mobilization private sector promotions, but 
also on the voluntary resignations by the reservist because of 
private sector working conditions the employee found 
unbearable. The secretary's report to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services would 
be due no later than March 1, 2007.

                   Subtitle C--Education and Training


    Section 521--Authority to Permit Members Who Participate in the 
 Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship Program to Participate in 
  the Health Professions Scholarship Program and Serve on Active Duty

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
modify agreements entered into by cadets in the Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps who participate in the Guaranteed 
Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship Program so that a cadet or 
former cadet could receive assistance under the Armed Forces 
Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) and serve on 
active duty as required by the HPSP. At present, a cadet who 
participates in the Guaranteed Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship 
Program must serve in a reserve component troop program unit.

   Section 522--Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Instruction 
                         Eligibility Expansion

    This section would allow the employment of retired reserve 
and national guard members as Junior Reserve Officers' Training 
Corps (JROTC) instructors. Existing law only allows the 
employment of active duty and retired regular officers and non-
commissioned officers as JROTC instructors. This section would 
also decouple the JROTC instructor salaries of retired reserve 
and national guard from active duty pay and military retirement 
entitlements and allow the secretary of the military department 
concerned to determine their salaries and to reimburse the 
JROTC host institution by an amount determined by the secretary 
concerned.

 Section 523--Authority for United States Military Academy and United 
   States Air Force Academy Permanent Military Professors to Assume 
            Command Positions While on Periods of Sabbatical

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the Army 
and the Air Force to assign military officers who are permanent 
professors at the United States Military and Air Force 
Academies, respectively, to act in a command capacity while on 
sabbaticals outside the academic realm of the academies.

   Section 524--Expansion of Service Academy Exchange Programs with 
                       Foreign Military Academies

    This section would increase from 24 to 100 the number of 
cadets at the United States Military Academy and the United 
States Air Force Academy, and the number of midshipmen at the 
United States Naval Academy, who may participate in exchange 
programs with foreign military academies. This section would 
also increase from 24 to 100 the number of students from 
foreign military academies whom may receive instruction at each 
of the service academies. Furthermore, this section would 
increase from $120,000 to $1.0 million the amount of 
appropriated funding that each service academy could expend in 
support of the exchange programs and would authorize the 
academies to also use additional funding that was provided from 
other than appropriated sources to support the exchange 
programs. The committee, however, does not intend that the 
additional funding from other than appropriated sources be used 
to fund exchange students in excess of the limit set by this 
section.

       Section 525--Review of Legal Status of Junior ROTC Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
review the 1976 legal opinion issued by the Department of 
Defense General Counsel that determined that Junior Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) instructors may be transported 
to a non-host school only to teach students previously enrolled 
in the JROTC unit at the host school, and only when it is 
impractical to require them to take courses at that host 
school. The purpose of the secretary's review would be to 
determine whether changes in law since 1976, including the 
repeal of the statutory limits on the number of JROTC units, 
and local school redistricting, which have split a host 
school's JROTC students into nearly equal groups, would now 
allow for the instructors from a host school to travel to and 
instruct JROTC students at another nearby school. This section 
also would allow a host school that is currently providing for 
the assignment of JROTC instructors to another school with 70 
or more students the authority to continue such support until 
180 days following the submission of the report by the 
Secretary of Defense.

                Subtitle D--General Service Authorities


 Section 531--Test of Utility of Test Preparation Guides and Education 
   Programs in Enhancing Recruit Candidate Performance on the Armed 
     Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and Armed Forces 
                       Qualification Test (AFQT)

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
administer a test program conducted by the secretaries of the 
military departments to determine the utility of commercially 
available test preparation guides and education programs to 
assist recruit candidates in achieving improved scores on 
military recruit qualification tests. The Secretary would 
identify 2,000 recruit candidates to receive test preparation 
assistance and a like number of recruit candidates to 
participate in a control group to allow comparisons of test 
performance and subsequent duty performance in training and 
unit settings following active duty entry. The Secretary would 
begin the test within nine months following the date of 
enactment of this Act. The test would identify participants 
over a 1-year period from the start of the test and shall 
assess duty performance for each participant for 18 months 
following entry on active duty.
    The committee has observed that there are many self-paced, 
computer assisted, and instructor led options for providing 
test preparation assistance for recruit qualification tests. 
The committee is interested in exploring the potential that 
these test preparation guides and education programs offer for 
the military to assist recruit candidates to achieve higher and 
more accurate aptitude and qualification scores. The committee 
believes that the test program proposed in this section would 
allow the Secretary to determine if test preparation assistance 
can be reliably used to improve the process by which recruits 
are placed in specialties and increase the number of youth that 
qualify for entry into the armed forces.

       Section 532--Nondisclosure of Selection Board Proceedings

    This section would clarify that selection board proceedings 
regarding promotion, retention, retirement, separation, and 
other personnel actions shall not be disclosed to any person 
who is not a board member and board records shall be immune 
from legal process, not be admitted as evidence, and not used 
for any judicial or administrative proceeding without the 
consent of the secretary concerned.

  Section 533--Report on Extent of Provision of Timely Notice of Long-
                            Term Deployments

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report on the number of members of the Armed Forces who, since 
September 11, 2001, have not received at least 30-days notice 
prior to a deployment that was scheduled to last 180 days or 
more. This section would require the report be made to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services no later than March 1, 2007.

       Subtitle E--Authorities Relating to Guard and Reserve Duty


   Section 541--Title 10 Definition of Active Guard and Reserve Duty

    This section would establish a new definition of ``active 
guard and reserve'' in section 101 of title 10, United States 
Code, and would also clarify the definition of ``active guard 
and reserve duty'' in the same section.

 Section 542--Authority for Active Guard and Reserve Duties to Include 
Support of Operational Missions Assigned to the Reserve Components and 
           Instruction and Training of Active-Duty Personnel

    This section would authorize reserve component personnel 
performing active guard and reserve duty, as well as military 
technicians (dual status), to also instruct or train active 
duty members of the armed forces, members of the foreign 
military forces, and Department of Defense contractor personnel 
and civilian employees. This section would limit the 
instructional or training duty only to that conducted in the 
United States, its possessions, the District of Columbia and 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This section would also 
require that the performance of such instructional and training 
duty be in addition to, not in lieu of, the primary duties of 
personnel on active guard and reserve duty and military 
technicians (dual status), which is to assist in the 
organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing and training 
the reserve components.

Section 543--Governor's Authority to Order Members to Active Guard and 
                              Reserve Duty

    This section would authorize the governor of a State, or 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, or the 
commanding general of the District of Columbia, to order 
members of the national guard to perform active guard and 
reserve duty, under title 32, United States Code, to support 
operations or missions at the request of the President or 
Secretary of Defense, or to support training operations and 
training missions assigned in whole or in part by the Secretary 
of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force.

       Section 544--National Guard Officers Authority to Command

    This section would permit, with Presidential authorization 
and consent of the governor, any national guard officer to 
retain a State commission in the national guard while serving 
on active duty. Thus, the officer would possess a dual status, 
State and federal, that would permit the officer to command 
forces and mixed component units operating under title 10, 
United States Code, and under title 32, United States Code. 
This section would provide that the Presidential authorization 
and gubernatorial consent be obtained in advance in order to 
establish command succession in active duty and mixed component 
units.

      Section 545--Expansion of Operations of Civil Support Teams

    This section would expand the types of emergencies to which 
members of the reserve components who are assigned to weapons 
of mass destruction civil support teams might respond. Thus, 
this section would authorize employment of such teams in the 
United States in natural or manmade disasters, or in the 
intentional or unintentional release of nuclear, biological, 
radiological, or toxic or poisonous chemical materials in the 
United States that results, or could result, in the 
catastrophic loss of life or property.

                   Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards


   Section 551--Authority for Presentation of Medal of Honor Flag to 
 Living Medal of Honor Recipients and to Living Primary Next-of-Kin of 
                   Deceased Medal of Honor Recipients

    This section would allow the purchase and presentation of a 
Medal of Honor flag to all living Medal of Honor recipients or, 
if deceased, to their living primary next-of-kin.

                  Section 552--Cold War Victory Medal

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
design a Cold War Victory Medal and issue it, upon application 
by a servicemember, to those individuals who:
          (1) Performed active duty or inactive duty for 
        training as an enlisted member, officer, or warrant 
        officer, during the Cold War and completed an initial 
        term of enlistment or obligation; or
          (2) If discharged before completion of the initial 
        term of enlistment or obligation, was honorably 
        discharged after completion of not less than 180 days 
        of service on active duty.

Section 553--Posthumous Award of Purple Heart for Prisoners of War Who 
                       Die in or Due to Captivity

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
award, posthumously, the Purple Heart to a member of the armed 
forces who died while in captivity as a prisoner of war or died 
due to injury or illness obtained while in captivity as a 
prisoner of war. If a servicemember died prior to the enactment 
of this Act then the secretary concerned would award the Purple 
Heart, upon receipt of an application that is made to the 
secretary containing such information as the secretary 
requires, to the appropriate next-of-kin of the servicemember.

   Section 554--Advancement on the Retired List of Certain Decorated 
                 Retired Navy and Marine Corps Officers

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
advance to the next higher on the retired list of officers who 
had been specifically commended for performance of duty in 
combat during World War II. Advancement on the retired list had 
been promised to a number of officers with valor decorations 
during World War II, but officers have been denied the honor 
because they retired after the expiration of the authority in 
law. This section would allow advancement on the retired list, 
but would only be honorary and would have no affect on 
compensation or benefits.

   Section 555--Report on Department of Defense Process for Awarding 
                              Decorations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
review the policy, procedures, and processes of the military 
departments for awarding decorations to members of the Armed 
Forces. The object of the review is to ensure that award 
recommendations are submitted and processed in a timely fashion 
and that the same consideration and timeliness that is afforded 
recommendations for active duty personnel is also provided to 
recommendations for reserve component members. This section 
would require the Secretary of Defense, no later than 90 days 
after the date of the enactment of this act, to submit a report 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services regarding the findings and 
recommendations, if any, for changes to the procedures and 
processes of the military departments.

               Subtitle G--Matters Relating to Casualties


 Section 561--Criteria for Removal of Member from Temporary Disability 
                              Retired List

    This section would clarify that a member with less than a 
30 percent disability rating may not be removed from the 
temporary disability retired list (TDRL) and separated prior to 
the maximum TDRL period allowed by law unless the disability is 
of a permanent nature and stable.

 Section 562--Department of Defense Computer/Electronic Accommodations 
                  Program for Severely Wounded Members

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
provide assistive technology, assistive technology devices, and 
assistive technology services to a member of the armed forces 
who has sustained a severe or debilitating illness or injury 
while serving in support of a contingency operation. This 
section would further authorize the Secretary to continue to 
provide such devices and services for an indefinite period, 
without regard to whether the person being assisted continues 
to be a member of the armed forces.

Section 563--Transportation of Remains of Casualties Dying in a Theater 
                          of Combat Operations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
transport by air, when air transport is appropriate, the 
remains of military servicemembers who died during combat 
operations or who died of non-combat related injuries in the 
theater of combat, from Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, to the 
military airfield nearest to the servicemember's place of 
internment or, if the next-of-kin requests it, to the 
commercial airfield nearest the interment location. This 
section would also require that:
          (1) Either military aircraft or aircraft contracted 
        by the military be dedicated to the exclusive mission 
        of moving the remains;
          (2) Active or reserve component military personnel 
        escort the remains during transportation from Dover Air 
        Force Base until the remains are delivered to the next-
        of-kin of the deceased servicemember or a 
        representative of the next-of-kin; and
          (3) A proper military escort, made up of, either, 
        members of the active or reserve components, are 
        present in sufficient number at the arrival airfield to 
        remove the servicemember's remains from the aircraft 
        and to render proper military honors.
    This section would permit one exception to the use of 
military aircraft by authorizing the use of commercial airlines 
to move the servicemember's remains from Dover to the airport 
nearest to the servicemember's interment only if requested by 
the next-of-kin of the servicemember. The committee makes these 
recommendations based on a strong belief that the remains of 
our military men and women should be transported with the 
utmost ceremony, honors, and respect.

 Section 564--Annual Budget Display of Funds for POW/MIA Activities of 
                         Department of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to Congress, as a part of the Department of Defense 
justification material that supports the President's annual 
budget request, a consolidated budget justification display 
that includes the prior year and future year funding for all 
programs and activities of the following organizations whose 
missions involve the accounting for and recovery of military 
personnel of the armed forces who are missing in action or 
prisoners of war: the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel 
Office (DPMO), the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), the 
Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL), and the Air 
Force's Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory (LSEL). The budget 
display should include for each of these organizations:
          (1) The amount, by appropriation and functional area, 
        originally requested for the fiscal year of the budget 
        request, with the supporting narrative describing the 
        rationale for the requested funding levels;
          (2) A summary of actual or estimated expenditures for 
        the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for 
        which the budget is being submitted;
          (3) The amounts requested in the budget for the 
        fiscal year of the request;
          (4) A detailed explanation of any inconsistencies 
        between the amount originally requested by each 
        organization and the amount of funds requested by the 
        President's annual budget; and,
          (5) The budget estimates for these organizations for 
        the next five years.
    The committee makes these recommendations because it 
believes that the mission to account for our missing 
servicemembers from past conflicts is a critical mission and to 
effectively perform its range of missions DPMO, JPAC, AFDIL, 
and LSEL must be fully resourced.

   Subtitle H--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for Defense 
                          Dependents Education


  Section 571--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational 
  Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and 
                Department of Defense Civilian Employees

    This section would provide $50.0 million for assistance to 
local educational agencies that have military dependent 
students comprising at least 20 percent of the students in 
average daily attendance during a year. This section would also 
provide $15.0 million for assistance to local educational 
agencies that experience significant increases or decreases in 
the average daily attendance of military dependent students due 
to military force structure changes, the relocation of military 
forces from one base to another, and from base closures and 
realignments. The committee makes this recommendation in 
connection with its continuing strong support of the need to 
help local school districts with significant concentrations of 
military students.

  Section 572--Enrollment in Defense Dependents' Education System of 
Dependents of Foreign Military Members Assigned to Supreme Headquarters 
                         Allied Powers, Europe

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
enroll on a space-required, tuition-free basis a limited number 
of dependents of foreign military members who are assigned to 
the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, in the 
Department of Defense dependents' education system in Mons, 
Belgium.

                      Subtitle I--Postal Benefits


  Section 575-Postal Benefits Program for Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the United States Postal Service, to provide 
a program of postal benefits to military members who are 
serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, or who are hospitalized at a 
medical facility under the jurisdiction of the armed forces as 
a result of disease or injury incurred while serving in Iraq or 
Afghanistan. The postal benefit would be provided using coupons 
or other forms of evidence indicating a mailing privilege to be 
used to mail letters, sound and video recordings, printed 
materials, or ground parcels not exceeding 15 pounds in weight 
at no cost. The section would require that the mailing 
privilege be exercised at a United States post office and be 
addressed to a qualified individual.

                          Section 576--Funding

    This section would specify that the Secretary of Defense 
shall provide funding to support the operation of the postal 
benefit program from funds appropriated for a contingent 
emergency reserve fund or as an emergency supplemental 
appropriation. This section would also require the Secretary to 
closely coordinate the transfer of funding to support the 
program with the United States Postal Service.

                         Section 577--Duration

    This section would specify that the Secretary of Defense 
shall operate the postal benefit program for the one-year 
period beginning on the date on which the Secretary publishes 
regulations to administer the program.

                       Subtitle J--Other Matters


 Section 581--Reduction in Department of Defense Accrual Contributions 
           to Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund

    This section would reduce the Department of Defense's 
accrual contributions into the Military Retirement Fund by 
requiring the department to contribute at the lower, more 
appropriate part-time rate for reserve component soldiers who 
are mobilized or on active duty for special work. Under current 
law, the department must make a contribution for such reserve 
component personnel at the higher, full-time rate even though 
when the reserve component personnel retire their reserve 
retirement annuity would be lower than the retirement annuity 
of an active component member.

    Section 582--Dental Corps of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery

    This section would change the current structure of the 
Department of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery by 
eliminating the requirement for a separate dental division 
within the bureau. However, this section would also establish 
the Dental Corps within the bureau and provide for the 
integration of the Dental Corps into the operations of the 
bureau.

Section 583--Permanent Authority for Presentation of Recognition Items 
                 for Recruitment and Retention Purposes

    This section would make permanent the authority in section 
2261 of title 10, United States Code, to expend appropriated 
funds to procure recognition items of nominal or modest value 
for recruitment or retention purposes and to present such items 
to members of the armed forces and to family members of members 
of the armed forces, and other individuals, recognized as 
providing support that substantially facilitates service in the 
armed forces.

    Section 584--Report on Feasibility of Establishment of Military 
              Entrance Processing Command Station on Guam

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report by June 1, 2007, on the feasibility and cost 
effectiveness of establishing on Guam a military entrance 
processing station for new recruits of the armed forces who are 
drawn from the western Pacific region. The Secretary's report 
would be provided to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
to the House Committee on Armed Services.

     Section 585--Persons Authorized to Administer Enlistment and 
                           Appointment Oaths

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
designate who is authorized to administer an enlistment or 
appointment oath, and would expand the number of people 
eligible to administer such oaths when the situation dictates. 
Sections 502 and 1031 of title 10, United States Code, 
currently permit any commissioned office of any component of 
the armed forces to administer such oaths. By contrast, section 
936(b)(6) of title 10 provides that the authority to administer 
oaths includes ``[a]ll other persons designated by regulations 
of the armed forces or by statute.'' This change would clarify 
any apparent contradictions between these sections of law.

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

    This section would eliminate the requirement for the 
Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct 
periodic assessments of compliance with voting assistance 
requirements at military installations. The inspectors general 
of the Army, Navy and Air Force already conduct installation 
visits to assess this compliance; therefore, any visits made by 
the DOD Inspector General would duplicate that effort. This 
section would not change the requirement that the DOD inspector 
general provide Congress with an annual report consolidating, 
summarizing and independently assessing the results of the 
reviews by the military service inspectors general. 
Furthermore, the DOD Inspector General would still maintain the 
statutory authority to conduct installation assessment visits 
throughout the Department to augment those conducted by the 
inspectors general of the military services.

                Section 587--Physical Evaluation Boards

    This section would make the following improvements to 
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) operations and timeliness and 
consistency of decisions:
          (1) Require the secretaries of the military 
        departments to ensure that documents announcing 
        decisions of PEBs convey the findings and conclusions 
        of the board in an orderly and itemized fashion with 
        specific attention to each issue presented by the 
        member in regard to that member's case.
          (2) Require the Secretary of Defense to publish 
        regulations establishing requirements and training 
        standards for Physical Evaluation Board liaison 
        officers and to assess the compliance of the 
        secretaries of the military departments with those 
        regulations at least once every three years; and
          (3) Require the Secretary of Defense to publish 
        regulations establishing standards and guidelines 
        concerning PEB assignment and training of staff, 
        operating procedures, and consistency and timeliness of 
        board decisions and to assess the compliance of the 
        secretaries of the military departments with those 
        regulations at least once every three years.
    As the war placed greater demands on the disability 
evaluation system, the committee observed increased complaints 
from servicemembers, particularly reserve component members, 
about the consistency and timeliness of PEB decisions, the 
ability of members to gain information about PEB procedures, 
and the rationale supporting board decisions. The committee 
also noted that the Government Accountability Office report, 
Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure 
Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty 
Service Members (GAO-06-362), March 2006, was critical of the 
absence of oversight management of the PEBs exercised by the 
Department of Defense. The committee believes that the 
initiatives proposed in this section would result in enhanced 
consistency and timeliness of PEB decisions and improved 
communication with members being serviced by the disability 
evaluation system.

    Section 588--Department of Labor Transitional Assistance Program

    This section would require participation by eligible 
members of the armed forces within the Department of Defense in 
the transitional assistance program provided by the Secretary 
of Labor. The Secretary of Defense is not required but shall 
encourage members to attend the program if they have previously 
participated in the program or upon discharge from active duty, 
are returning to an employment position or are enrolled in 
school.

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

    This section would change the formula by which the 
government makes annual contributions to the Medicare-eligible 
Uniformed Services Retiree Health Care Fund. This fund is used 
to finance the health care provided by the uniformed services 
to retirees of those services who are also eligible to receive 
health care under Medicare. The section would not make any 
change in the health care benefits provided to Medicare-
eligible uniformed services retirees. The section, however, 
would reduce the annual government contribution to the fund by 
changing the formula for calculating that contribution, as 
follows:
          (1) Excluding the cadets and midshipmen at the 
        service academies of the armed forces;
          (2) Excluding members of the reserve components who 
        are not counted against active component end strength 
        by reason of section 115(i) of title 10, United States 
        Code; and
          (3) Basing the calculation on Selected Reserve 
        strength, not the strength of the larger Ready Reserve.
    The section would also restate and clarify Congressional 
intent, enacted by section 725 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), by prohibiting any funds authorized or appropriated to 
the Department of Defense from being used to make any payment 
to the fund. Then, as now, the committee intends that the 
Secretary of the Treasury, not the Secretary of Defense, be 
wholly, completely and exclusively responsible for making the 
annual accrual payments required by Chapter 56 of title 10 
United States Code. Therefore, the committee also directs that 
no annual accrual payment required by Chapter 56 be charged, 
credited, or classified in any budget formulation, budget 
functional classification or scoring of mandatory or 
discretionary spending against the Department of Defense. The 
committee takes this action because budget requests since the 
enactment of section 725 have not complied with Congressional 
intent.

                    Section 590--Military Chaplains

    This section would establish that chaplains in each of the 
military services would have the prerogative to pray according 
to the dictates of their own consciences, except as must be 
limited by military necessity. The section would also clarify 
that whenever a limitation for military necessity was applied 
it would be imposed in the least restrictive manner feasible.

   Section 591--Report on Personnel Requirements for Airborne Assets 
         Identified as Low-Density, High-Demand Airborne Assets

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report, not later than 90 days after enactment of this 
Act, on personnel requirements and shortfalls for airborne 
assets identified as low-density, high-demand airborne assets 
based on combatant commander requirements to conduct and 
sustain operations for the global war on terrorism, and would 
include: the number of operations and maintenance crews to meet 
tasking contemplated to conduct operations for the global war 
on terrorism; the current numbers of operations and maintenance 
crews; if applicable, shortages of operations and maintenance 
crews; whether such shortages are addressed in the future years 
defense program; whether end-strength increase are required to 
meet any such shortages; costs of personnel needed to address 
shortfalls; and if applicable, the number and types of 
equipment needed to address training shortfalls.

  Section 592--Entrepreneurial Service Members Empowerment Task Force

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration, to establish a task force to provide timely 
input and recommendations to both the secretary and the 
administrator on:
          (1) Measures to improve not only programs designed to 
        address the economic concerns, challenges and 
        opportunities of reserve component members; and,
          (2) The coordination among various governmental 
        entities whose programs could assist reserve component 
        members with those economic concerns, challenges and 
        opportunities.
    This section would authorize the task force to operate 
until September 30, 2009.

   Section 593--Comptroller General Report on Military Conscientious 
                               Objectors

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
submit to Congress, not later than 180 days after enactment of 
this Act, a report concerning members of the Armed Forces who 
have claimed the status as a military conscientious objector 
between January 1, 1989 and December 31, 2006.

       Section 594--Commission on the National Guard and Reserves

    This section would amend section 513 of the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
(Public Law 108-375) to extend the Commission on the National 
Guard and Reserves by six months. This section would also 
direct the commission to study and report to Congress by March 
1, 2007, on the following additional matters: the advisability 
and feasibility of implementing the provisions of H.R. 5200 of 
the 109th Congress; whether the Chief, National Guard Bureau, 
should serve in the grade of general in his current capacity; 
and whether the Department of Defense processes for defining 
the equipment and funding necessary for the National Guard to 
perform its responsibilities, under title 10, United States 
Code, and title 32, United States Code, are adequate.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to believe that successful 
recruiting and retention in a wartime environment is directly 
dependent on the close oversight of compensation and benefit 
programs to ensure that they remain current, flexible, and 
effective. Accordingly, the committee recommends an across-the-
board pay raise of 2.7 percent and a further adjustment to the 
military pay table to target increases to mid-grade and senior 
noncommissioned officers and warrant officers. The committee 
also recognizes that some previously adopted compensation 
policies, bonuses, and special pays require modification to 
ensure they remain current and effective and the committee has 
recommended a number of such adjustments.
    The committee remains committed to protecting and enhancing 
military exchange, commissary, and morale, welfare, and 
recreation programs. Accordingly, the committee has included 
provisions that would clarify the primacy of nonappropriated 
fund activities in providing ancillary support services when 
government property is leased to private parties, specify the 
allocation of revenue received by commissaries for certain 
products, and require a test of golf carts that are accessible 
to disabled persons.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


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

    The committee has learned that there may be approximately 
137 Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuitants experiencing a 
reduction in their overall compensation as a result of the 
phased elimination of the two-tier annuity computation for 
surviving spouses enacted in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-136). The committee 
believes that the reduction in overall income may result in 
those cases where annuitants receive full payment of Dependency 
Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and Supplemental Survivor Benefit Program (SSBP) 
benefits without the dollar for dollar offset that is taken 
from standard SBP payments. The committee notes that retirees 
were charged higher premiums to participate in SSBP and 
specifically counter the reduction in SBP benefits that occurs 
when annuitants arrive at age 62 and social security benefits 
became available. The committee fears that as the phased 
elimination of the two-tier system progresses, the SSBP 
payments are being incrementally replaced by payments from the 
standard SBP. This means that income that has not been subject 
to the DIC offset is being replaced with income that is subject 
to the offset thus resulting in a loss of income to the 
annuitant. The committee is troubled that the loss of income 
being experienced by annuitants is potentially an unintended 
consequence of the process to eliminate the two-tier annuity 
computation system. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to study this issue to confirm that the 
problem exists and determine the number of annuitants that are 
losing income, the extent of the income being lost, the cause 
of the income loss, and, if appropriate, the legislative 
solution.
    The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings 
and recommendations, including any legislative proposals, by 
March 31, 2007 to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services.

    Military Decorations and Uniform Accouterments Sold in Military 
                            Exchange Stores

    The committee strongly believes that all medals associated 
with military decorations and military ribbons, badges, 
insignia, and other uniform accouterments offered to military 
members in military exchange stores should be manufactured 
within the United States. The committee is aware of concerns 
that some medals and uniform accouterments manufactured outside 
the United States have appeared in exchange and other 
government procurement channels. Accordingly, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to review the policies and 
procedures used by the Army Air Force Exchange Service, the 
Navy Exchange Service Command, and Marine Corps exchanges to 
procure military medals and military ribbons, badges, insignia, 
and other uniform accouterments to determine the extend to 
which foreign made products are available for sale to 
servicemembers.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on 
his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services.

            Recoupment of Survivor Benefit Plan Overpayments

    The committee is concerned by reports that many survivors 
of military retirees are experiencing great anxiety, 
inconvenience, and financial hardship as a result of the 
procedures employed by the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service (DFAS) when reconciling the simultaneous payment of the 
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and Dependency and Indemnity 
Compensation (DIC) benefits. The committee understands that the 
survivors are normally subjected to an automated and impersonal 
process that provides little opportunity for survivors to 
understand the details of the recoupment process that 
frequently involves thousands of dollars. The survivors are 
also routinely required to pay a large recoupment amount, which 
is typically followed by a refund back to the survivor of SBP 
premiums that no longer apply because of DIC eligibility. The 
committee believes that DFAS, in cooperation with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, is capable of providing better 
customer service, that is more sensitive to limiting the 
financial disruption imposed on survivors. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
problems associated with the current DFAS procedures regarding 
the simultaneous entitlement to SBP and DIC with a view toward 
improving customer service and minimizing the financial 
disruptions imposed on survivors.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on 
his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services.

       Second Destination Transportation of Exchange Store Goods

    The committee was disappointed to learn that the Secretary 
of the Army had failed to include funding in the fiscal year 
2007 budget request for second destination transportation of 
Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) goods for resale at 
overseas stores. Although the Secretary has been quick to make 
the needed adjustment to the budget request to fully account 
for AAFES' second destination transportation requirements, 
there remains the obvious conclusion that the Secretary chose 
to ignore the specific requirement in law requiring the use of 
appropriated funds to pay for second destination transportation 
expenses (10 U.S.C., 2643). The committee concludes that this 
oversight reflects a lack of commitment within the Army to 
protecting the quality of life of members and families residing 
overseas. The Secretary should take note that the committee 
does not tolerate such an oversight and that the committee is 
closely monitoring the second destination transportation 
funding level during fiscal year 2007 and in future budget 
requests. The committee trusts that the Secretary is in a 
position to prevent such oversights in the future.

                   Treatment of Dual Military Couples

    The committee recognizes that there are over 90,000 
military members who are married to other military members and 
that the number of these dual military couples is increasing. 
However, the committee notes that personnel and compensation 
law and policy that have been established over time have not 
taken into account the changing marital demographics of the 
force. For example, this Act includes a provision that would 
ensure that a surviving dual military spouse of a service 
member who dies while serving on active duty is provided the 
same continuation of basic allowance for housing as other 
surviving spouses who are not military members. This issue 
raises concerns that there may be other circumstances when law 
or policy disadvantages dual military couples. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review personnel 
and compensation law and policy to ensure that dual military 
couples are treated equitably and fairly.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on 
his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2007, to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services.

                      United Service Organizations

    The committee recognizes that the United Service 
Organization (USO) celebrity tours are well known and beloved 
by our men and women in uniform, particularly among those 
deployed overseas. Over the years, the USO has offered 
thousands of entertainers the opportunity to volunteer their 
time and talents entertaining the troops and their families. 
The committee is aware that the Armed Forces Entertainment 
(AFE) program has limited resources available to support USO 
celebrity tours to the levels being requested, but the 
committee acknowledges the dedicated effort by AFE to support 
morale and welfare within the worldwide military community. The 
committee commends the USO for its support for our military 
personnel and their families and in particular for its 
extraordinary celebrity tour program that provides world class 
entertainment in collaboration with the AFE to deployed 
military forces across the globe.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances


        Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2007

    This section would increase basic pay for members of the 
armed forces by 2.7 percent effective January 1, 2007. This 
raise would continue to fulfill Congress' commitment to enhance 
pay raises for the armed forces and would reduce the gap 
between military and private sector pay increases from 4.5 
percent to 4.0 percent.

           Section 602--Targeted Increase in Basic Pay Rates

    This section would target mid-grade and senior 
noncommissioned officers and warrant officers for additional 
pay raises effective April 1, 2007. The targeted raises would 
allow these groups to achieve a level of income that is more 
comparable with their private sector peers.

 Section 603--Conforming Change in General and Flag Officer Pay Cap to 
   Reflect Increase in Pay Cap for Senior Executive Service Personnel

    This section would increase the cap on general and flag 
officer pay levels from Level III to Level II on the Executive 
Schedule. This section would allow general and flag officer pay 
levels to keep pace with Senior Executive Service pay levels.

  Section 604--Availability of Second Basic Allowance for Housing for 
  Certain Reserve Component or Retired Members Serving in Support of 
                         Contingency Operations

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to 
provide a second monthly basic allowance for housing to reserve 
component members without dependents mobilized in support of a 
contingency operation and serving in a duty location that does 
not allow the members to reside at their permanent residence.

 Section 605--Extension of Temporary Continuation of Housing Allowance 
for Dependents of Members Dying on Active Duty to Spouses Who are Also 
                                Members

    This section would authorize military members who are 
surviving spouses of members who die while serving on active 
duty to receive the basic allowance for housing that would be 
due to the deceased member for 365 days in the same way that 
such an allowance would be paid to surviving spouses who are 
not military members.

    Section 606--Clarification of Effective Date of Prohibition on 
                Compensation for Correspondence Courses

    This section would clarify that the prohibition barring 
reserve component members from receiving compensation for work 
or study performed in a correspondence course is effective 
September 7, 1962, and includes members of the national guard 
while not in federal service.

Section 607--Payment of Full Premium for Coverage Under Servicemembers' 
   Group Life Insurance Program during Service in Operation Enduring 
                   Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom

    This section would require the secretary concerned to 
increase the allowance paid to members serving in either 
Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom to 
reimburse the cost of all levels of coverage under the 
Servicemember's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) elected by the 
members. Section 613 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) required that the 
Secretaries concerned pay an allowance to reimburse the cost of 
only the first $150,000 of insurance coverage elected by the 
member.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays


Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for 
                             Reserve Forces

    This section would extend the authority for the Selected 
Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or 
enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to 
certain high priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus 
for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment 
and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, and the 
Selected Reserve enlistment bonus for persons with prior 
service until December 31, 2007.

Section 612--Extension of Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for Health 
                           Care Professionals

    This section would extend the authority for the nurse 
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists, the special pay for Selected Reserve health care 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the 
accession bonus for dental officers, and the accession bonus 
for pharmacy officers until December 31, 2007. This section 
would also extend the authority for repayment of educational 
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the 
Selected Reserve until January 1, 2008.

Section 613--Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities for Nuclear 
                                Officers

    This section would extend the authority for the special pay 
for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active 
service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career 
annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2007.

Section 614--Extension of Other Bonus, Special Pay, and Separation Pay 
                              Authorities

    This section would extend the authority for the aviation 
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the 
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for 
active members, the retention bonus for members with critical 
military skills, the accession bonus for new officers in 
critical skills, the military occupational specialty conversion 
incentive bonus and the transfer between armed forces incentive 
bonus until December 31, 2007, except for assignment incentive 
pay which is extended until December 31, 2008.

Section 615--Expansion of Eligibility of Dental Officers for Additional 
                              Special Pay

    This section would clarify that dentists may be paid 
additional special pay notwithstanding their participation in 
internship or residency programs.

    Section 616--Increase in Maximum Annual Rate of Special Pay for 
Selected Reserve Health Care Professionals in Critically Short Wartime 
                              Specialties

    This section would increase the maximum annual rate of 
special pay for Selected Reserve health care professionals in 
critically short wartime specialties from $10,000 to $25,000.

 Section 617--Authority to Provide Lump Sum Payment of Nuclear Officer 
                             Incentive Pay

    This section would authorize nuclear officer incentive pay 
to be paid as a lump sum or in variable annual amounts in 
addition to payment in equal annual installments.

  Section 618--Increase in Maximum Amount of Nuclear Career Accession 
                                 Bonus

    This section would increase the maximum amount of the 
nuclear career accession bonus from $20,000 to $30,000.

Section 619--Increase in Maximum Amount of Incentive Bonus for Transfer 
                          Between Armed Forces

    This section would increase the maximum amount of the 
incentive bonus for transfer between armed forces from $2,500 
to $10,000.

 Section 620--Clarification Regarding Members of the Army Eligible for 
      Bonus for Referring Other Persons for Enlistment in the Army

    This section would clarify that military retirees, to 
include a member of a reserve component under 60 years of age 
who, but for age, would be eligible for retired pay, are 
eligible to be paid the referral bonus.

 Section 621--Pilot Program for Recruitment Bonus for Critical Health 
                            Care Specialties

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a two-year pilot program to offer additional 
financial recruiting incentives under the Armed Forces Health 
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program for up 
to five critical medical specialties. The Secretary would be 
required to submit a mid-term and final report on lessons 
learned from the pilot program to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.

 Section 622--Enhancement of Temporary Program of Voluntary Separation 
                            Pay and Benefits

    This section would expand the temporary program of 
voluntary separation pay and benefits authorized in section 643 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163) to remove the bar prohibiting 
participation of enlisted personnel and officers with between 
12 and 20 years of service. This section would also extend the 
expiration date of the authority from December 31, 2008 to 
December 31, 2009.

Section 623--Additional Authorities and Incentives to Encourage Retired 
 Members and Reserve Component Members to Volunteer to Serve on Active 
              Duty in High-Demand, Low-Density Assignments

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
pay a bonus of up to $50,000 to encourage retired members, 
reservists, and former members discharged from the military who 
possess critical skills to return to active duty to fill 
shortage manpower requirements in units tasked to provide high-
demand, low-density military capabilities or to fill other 
critically manned specialties, as designated by the Secretary. 
This section would also authorize the Secretary to develop 
additional incentives to encourage personnel with critical 
high-demand, low-density skills to return to active duty which 
the Secretary may implement after notifying the Congressional 
defense subcommittees of the reasons why the proposal is needed 
and waiting 30 days. The authority would expire on December 31, 
2010.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


 Section 631--Authority to Pay Costs Associated with Delivery of Motor 
 Vehicle to Storage Location Selected by Member and Subsequent Removal 
                               of Vehicle

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay 
the costs for members to deliver and remove privately owned 
vehicles from storage locations chosen by the member. Such 
payments would not be authorized to exceed the total cost that 
would have been incurred by the government if the government 
storage location had been used.

 Section 632--Transportation of Additional Motor Vehicle of Members on 
  Change of Permanent Station to or from Nonforeign Areas Outside the 
                       Continental United States

    This section would authorize members with at least one 
family member eligible to drive to ship two privately owned 
vehicles during permanent change of station moves to nonforeign 
duty locations located outside the continental United States. 
Nonforeign duty locations outside the continental United States 
include Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and other 
territories and possessions.

Section 633--Travel and Transportation Allowances for Transportation of 
        Family Members Incident to Illness or Injury of Members

    This section would expand the authority to pay for travel 
and transportation of family members to visit ill or injured 
members to include family members that are also military 
members.

             Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits


    Section 641--Military Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiaries Under 
                      Insurable Interest Coverage

    This section would allow military retirees who participate 
in the Survivor Benefit Plan and elect the insurable interest 
coverage to select a new insurable interest if their 
beneficiary dies.

   Section 642--Retroactive Payment of Additional Death Gratuity for 
                 Certain Members Not Previously Covered

    This section would correct a technical error in section 664 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163) that prevented the payment of an 
additional $150,000 death gratuity intended for surviving 
family members of non-combat active duty deaths that occurred 
during the period from May 12, 2005 through August 31, 2005.

   Section 643--Equity in Computation of Disability Retired Pay for 
              Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action

    This section would authorize the retired pay for a member 
of a reserve component to be calculated using the member's 
total years of service in lieu of active duty years of service 
when the retirement involves a disability that was incurred 
under circumstances that resulted in the award of the Purple 
Heart.

    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                                Benefits


  Section 651--Treatment of Price Surcharges of Tobacco Products and 
          Certain Other Merchandise Sold at Commissary Stores

    This section would clarify that for products that are sold 
as special exceptions to the standard surcharge of five percent 
of the revenue above cost of the products shall be applied to 
the surcharge fund as if it were a uniform surcharge product. 
The products that would be handled in this manner include 
tobacco products and, during the ongoing test of the sale of 
impulse purchase products, one-time use cameras, film, and 
telephone cards.

Section 652--Limitation on Use of Department of Defense Lease Authority 
to Undermine Commissaries and Exchanges and Other Morale, Welfare, and 
     Recreation Programs and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities

    This section would bar ancillary services from being 
provided in facilities on property leased by the government to 
private entities if the secretary concerned determines that 
those ancillary services will be provided in direct competition 
with exchanges, commissaries, and morale, welfare, and 
recreation activities. This section would make an exception for 
facilities on leased property that is part of a base closure 
site.
    The committee believes that the military exchanges, 
commissaries, and morale, welfare and recreation activities 
have primacy in providing ancillary services and merchandise 
over the interests of private sector entities leasing 
government property if the facilities on the leased property 
will directly compete with the exchanges, commissaries, and 
morale, welfare, and recreation activities.

  Section 653--Use of Nonappropriated Funds to Supplement or Replace 
 Appropriated Funds for Construction of Facilities of Exchange Stores 
   System and Other Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities, Military 
             Lodging, Facilities, and Community Facilities

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
allocate nonappropriated funds to augment or replace 
appropriated funding of construction of military exchange, 
military lodging; morale, welfare, and recreation; and 
community facilities. This section would also require that the 
Secretary provide notification to the congressional defense 
committees when allocating nonappropriated funding to support 
any construction project.

  Section 654--Report on Cost Effectiveness of Purchasing Commercial 
  Insurance for Commissary and Exchange Facilities and Facilities of 
Other Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs and Nonappropriated Fund 
                           Instrumentalities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study to determine the cost effectiveness of 
nonappropriated fund activities purchasing commercial insurance 
to protect financial interests in facilities operated by 
morale, welfare and recreation activities, military exchange 
stores, and commissary stores. This section would require the 
Secretary to submit a report on his findings and 
recommendations by July 31, 2007.
    The committee notes that many nonappropriated fund 
facilities destroyed and damaged during the 2005 hurricane 
season will be replaced using appropriated funds. The committee 
recognizes that commercial insurance may be a better option for 
protecting nonappropriated fund property. However, the 
committee is concerned that more must be understood about the 
cost effectiveness of purchasing commercial insurance and 
whether such insurance represents a useful option in all cases 
or only for the most high risk locations. The committee 
believes that the study proposed in this section would provide 
the needed information.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


 Section 661--Repeal of Annual Reporting Requirement Regarding Effects 
                of Recruitment and Retention Initiatives

    This section would repeal the requirement in section 1015 
of title 37, United States Code, for the Secretary of Defense 
to submit an annual recruiting and retention report.

 Section 662--Pilot Project Regarding Providing Golf Carts Accessible 
             for Disabled Persons at Military Golf Courses

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a test to determine the cost effectiveness, demand, and 
utility of purchasing golf carts that are accessible to 
disabled persons. This section would require the Secretary to 
purchase or acquire from other Department of Defense resources 
a minimum of three golf carts designed to provide access to 
disabled golfers at a minimum of three military golf courses. 
The three golf courses would be geographically dispersed, but 
one would be in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. The test 
would be conducted for a minimum of one year. This section 
would require the Secretary to submit a report on his findings 
and recommendations not later than 180 days after the 
conclusion of the test.
    The committee believes that it is important for military 
golf courses to lead the nation in facilitating the 
participation of disabled golfers by offering the latest in 
golf cart technology. However, the committee appreciates that 
more must be understood about the cost effectiveness, demand, 
and utility of purchasing the specialized golf carts. The 
committee believes that the study proposed in this section 
would provide the needed information.

  Section 663--Enhanced Authority to Remit or Cancel Indebtedness of 
          Members of the Armed Forces Incurred on Active Duty

    This section would extend the termination date of the 
temporary expanded authority for the secretaries of the 
military departments to remit or cancel indebtedness of 
military members included in section 683 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) from December 31, 2007, to December 31, 2009. This section 
would also increase the period of time following honorable 
discharge or separation during which the secretaries may 
exercise the expanded authority to remit and cancel 
indebtedness from one year to five years.

                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee is concerned about the capability of the 
Defense Health Program to sustain the long-term quality and 
accessibility of the health care provided to the members of the 
armed forces and their families, along with retirees and their 
families. In the face of the growing cost of health care, the 
committee recognizes that the Department of Defense (DOD) may 
face significant challenges controlling that cost while 
providing for the medical readiness and force health protection 
for the men and women in uniform and ensuring health care 
services to all other beneficiaries. In this context, the 
committee closely examined the Department of Defense proposals 
to reduce the cost of health care and concluded that the plan 
relies too narrowly on increasing the costs of TRICARE to 
retirees. The committee believes that a more comprehensive 
approach to sustaining the military health care benefit is 
required and that changes to the military health care benefit 
require careful, deliberate consideration with a full 
accounting of the impact across the board. Therefore, the 
committee recommends legislation to require a review of DOD 
plans to reduce the cost of health care and an assessment and 
recommendations for sustaining the military health care 
services provided to members of the armed forces, retirees, and 
their families. The committee makes these recommendations to 
allow for a period of time to shape a comprehensive approach to 
address the cost of military health care.
    The committee remains strongly committed to ensuring that 
members of the armed forces, retirees, and their families have 
access to quality health care. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends legislation to provide coverage for forensic 
examinations following sexual assaults and domestic violence 
and coverage for anesthesia and hospital costs for dental care 
provided to children and certain other beneficiaries. In 
addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a demonstration project to provide over-the-counter 
medications under the pharmacy benefit program.
    Finally, the committee is steadfast in its view that the 
Department of Defense and the federal government should not be 
doubly liable for the cost of financial incentives paid by DOD 
contractors to employees to enroll in the TRICARE program and 
still be at risk for the cost of providing health care to 
TRICARE-eligible employees. As such, the committee recommends 
legislation that would establish as unallowable the contract 
costs that result when DOD contractors pay or otherwise create 
financial incentives for TRICARE-eligible employees to use the 
TRICARE or other government-sponsored health care programs in 
lieu of the contractor-provided health care program.
    In light of the many challenges faced by the military 
health care system, the committee continues to believe that the 
Defense Health Program must be fully funded.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


               Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center

    The committee is aware of an effort by the Department of 
the Navy to establish a comprehensive combat casualty care 
center at the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California, for 
all military personnel. The center would allow wounded 
servicemembers to continue their rehabilitation closer to their 
families in the western region of the United States. Currently, 
there is no regional Department of Defense (DOD) center to 
support such efforts in the west. The center would complement 
the activities at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Brooke 
Army Medical Center, enhance efforts with the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) in providing specialized care to wounded 
servicemembers, and allow for a seamless transition the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, if necessary. The committee 
urges the Department of Defense to consider funding such a 
center through the DOD-VA Joint Incentive Fund.

      Comptroller General Report on a Unified Medical Command Plan

    The committee notes with great interest the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) effort to improve the effectiveness and enhance 
military medicine through a unified medical command. The Army, 
Navy, and Air Force medical communities have provided superior, 
high-quality health care to our servicemembers, particularly 
those who have been injured or wounded on the front lines of 
combat. However, efforts to improve and streamline care have 
been hampered by the lack of standardized equipment and 
processes. The committee believes a unified medical command 
could improve the care being provided by the services with 
significant cost savings. The committee understands that the 
Department has established a Joint/Unified Medical Command 
Working Group to develop recommendations for two specific 
commands, a single joint/unified medical command responsible 
for all market areas of private sector care, and a joint/
unified medical command responsible for operational/deployed 
medicine. The committee is concerned that two separate and 
distinct commands, one for operational medicine and one for 
private sector care, may actually hamper efforts to achieve 
greater efficiencies. As such, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General to conduct a review of the various studies 
that the Department of Defense and other organizations have 
undertaken and provide an analysis of the various unified 
medical command structures under consideration by the 
Department and outside organizations. The Comptroller General 
review shall include the studies undertaken by DOD's Joint/
Unified Medical Command Working Group, as well as reviews 
conducted by the Center for Naval Analysis Corporation and 
other organizations, such as the Defense Business Board. The 
committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report on 
his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2007.

                  Fort Drum Health Care Pilot Program

    The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) established a pilot 
program to test initiatives that build cooperative health care 
arrangements and agreements between military installations and 
local regional non-military health care systems. As an 
installation undergoing profound growth, Fort Drum, New York, 
was selected as one of two test sites for the pilot program. 
The committee recommends $0.4 million for the Fort Drum 
regional health planning organization that has been organized 
to coordinate the pilot program, as well as to help conduct 
necessary assessments and/or studies.

     Mental Health Programs for Combat Veterans and Their Families

    The committee recognizes the need for programs that assist 
military veterans who return from Iraq and Afghanistan to 
effectively deal with mental health issues and applauds the 
efforts of the Department of Defense and the Veterans 
Administration to provide mental health programs to combat 
veterans and their families. The committee urges both 
Departments to expand their current programs to include 
training programs, services and resources designed by 
behavioral health personnel with experience in a combat theater 
and focused on addressing combat stress and reintegration 
issues for active and reserve component personnel and their 
families.

                  Screening for Traumatic Brain Injury

    The committee applauds the efforts of the Department of 
Defense to implement a comprehensive policy for assessing the 
health status of military personnel prior to deploying, upon 
redeployment and again three to six months after returning 
home. However, the committee is aware of Defense and Veterans 
Brain Injury Center studies showing that 31 percent of combat 
injured patients evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan have a 
traumatic brain injury (TBI). According to the studies, many of 
these injuries result from blasts and are not always 
accompanied by obvious head trauma. Formal screening by trained 
medical personnel is required to identify these injuries and 
many injuries are never diagnosed. The committee is concerned 
that servicemembers with undiagnosed and untreated traumatic 
brain injuries may compromise operational readiness and may 
experience long-term medical effects from the injury. To 
address this issue, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to modify the pre- and post-deployment assessments and 
the post-deployment reassessment by March 31, 2007, to contain 
questions that screen for traumatic brain injury.
    In addition, the committee directs the Secretary to develop 
a comprehensive and systematic approach for the identification, 
treatment, disposition and documentation of TBI, including mild 
to moderate TBI, for combat and peace time injuries. The 
committee directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive 
approach by May 1, 2007, and to report its actions to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services.

                  TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy Program

    The committee is aware that the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy 
program is an outstanding benefit for members of the armed 
services, retirees and their families. The mail order pharmacy 
is a cost effective and burden free method for beneficiaries to 
obtain medications. However, the committee is concerned that a 
lack of awareness and understanding of the program may exist 
among providers who prescribe medication within the facilities 
of the uniformed services and in the purchased care system. In 
addition, the committee is concerned that prescribing 
medications for distribution through the TRICARE Mail Order 
Pharmacy is time consuming and burdensome for providers.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to implement 
a comprehensive education program on the TRICARE Mail Order 
Pharmacy program that targets providers within the facilities 
of the uniformed services and in the purchased care system. The 
committee further directs the Secretary to take the necessary 
steps to ensure that the Pharmacy Data Transaction System and 
the Armed Forces Health Technology Application are modified to 
provide electronic transmission of prescriptions directly to 
the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy System. The committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to implement these recommendations and 
submit a report on the progress of the implementation to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by December 31, 2007.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                Subtitle A--TRICARE Program Improvements


Section 701--TRICARE Coverage for Forensic Examination Following Sexual 
                      Assault or Domestic Violence

    This section would provide coverage under the TRICARE 
program for forensic examinations following sexual assault or 
domestic violence.

  Section 702--Authorization of Anesthesia and Other Costs for Dental 
              Care for Children and Certain Other Patients

    This section would provide coverage under the TRICARE 
program for anesthesia services and institutional costs for 
dental treatment for beneficiaries with developmental, mental 
or physical disabilities and for children under the age of 
five.

     Section 703--Improvements to Descriptions of Cancer Screening

    This section would update the terminology used in the 
description of primary and preventive health care screenings 
authorized for female beneficiaries of the military health 
system. This section would authorize screening tests for 
cervical cancer and breast cancer without prescribing the use 
of the Papanicolau test or the mammogram. The committee 
understands that as new medical technology develops, legacy 
screening methods may become obsolete.

Section 704--Prohibition on Increases in Certain Health Care Costs for 
                   Members of the Uniformed Services

    This section would prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) 
from increasing the premium, deductible and copayment for 
TRICARE Prime, the charge for inpatient care for TRICARE 
Standard, and the premium for TRICARE Reserve Select and 
TRICARE Standard for members of the Selected Reserve during the 
period from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007. The committee 
shares the DOD's concern about the rise in the cost of military 
health care and the potential for the escalating cost to have a 
negative impact on the ability of the Department to sustain the 
benefit over the long-term. However, the committee believes 
that changes to the military health care benefit require 
careful, deliberate consideration with a full accounting of the 
impact across the board. The committee makes these 
recommendations to allow for a period of time to shape a more 
balanced approach to address the cost of military health care.

           Section 705--Services of Mental Health Counselors

    This section would allow mental health counselors, without 
prior physician referral or supervision, to be reimbursed for 
services provided to TRICARE beneficiaries. This section would 
also amend section 704 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) to allow mental 
health counselors to enter into personal service contracts with 
the Department of Defense for the purpose of providing mental 
health services to TRICARE beneficiaries. Further, this section 
would require that mental health counselors meet the licensure 
or certification requirements for ``health care professional'' 
established by section 1094 of title 10, United States Code.

  Section 706--Demonstration Project on Coverage of Selected Over-the-
         Counter Medications Under the Pharmacy Benefit Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a demonstration project that would authorize the use of 
over-the-counter medications, in lieu of the equivalent 
prescription drugs. The demonstration program would take place 
in at least two of the three venues (military treatment 
facilities, TRICARE mail order pharmacy and retail pharmacies) 
where medications are dispensed to beneficiaries. At a minimum, 
the Secretary would be required to conduct the demonstration in 
at least five sites in each of the TRICARE regions for each of 
the two venues selected. The committee urges the Secretary to 
select the retail pharmacy program as one of the two venues in 
which to conduct the demonstration.

   Section 707--Requirement to Reimburse Certain Travel Expenses of 
           Certain Beneficiaries Covered by TRICARE for Life

    This section would allow a beneficiary who receives initial 
care at a military treatment facility prior to attaining the 
age of 65 to receive reimbursement for travel expenses 
associated with limited follow up care at the same facility in 
which the initial care was received. In addition, the 
beneficiary must reside over 100 miles from the military 
treatment facility and must be referred to the facility by a 
specialty care provider to be eligible.

     Section 708--Inflation Adjustment of Differential Payments to 
         Children's Hospitals Participating in TRICARE Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish an annual inflationary adjustment for the TRICARE 
children's hospital differential payment rate beginning in 
fiscal year 2007.

  Section 709--Expanded Eligibility of Selected Reserve Members Under 
                            TRICARE Program

    This section would provide coverage under the TRICARE 
Standard program to all members of the Selected Reserves and 
their families while in a non-active duty status. Participants 
would be required to pay a premium that would be 28 percent of 
the total amount determined by the Secretary of Defense as 
being reasonable for the TRICARE coverage. This section would 
not extend TRICARE eligibility to reservists who were also 
federal employees entitled to Federal Employee Health Benefits 
Plan coverage under title 5, United States Code. Further, this 
section would repeal the three tiered cost share TRICARE 
program for reserves established by the fiscal year 2006 
National Defense Authorization Act.

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

    This section would extend to the TRICARE program the same 
rule that currently applies to the Medicare program, making it 
unlawful for an employer or other entity to offer any financial 
or other incentive for a TRICARE retired beneficiary (military 
retirees and theirdependents) not to enroll under a health plan 
which would under law be primary payer to TRICARE. Further, this 
section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to adopt exceptions to 
the provision that the Secretary deems necessary for implementation of 
the prohibition. This section would also authorize the Secretary to 
discontinue the relationship with a contractor for repeated violations 
of this section. The committee makes this recommendation to address the 
growing concern that employers are shifting the financial 
responsibility of providing health care benefits to their employees to 
the federal taxpayers. Such cost shifting, left unchecked, would 
greatly increase government costs.

                    Subtitle B--Studies and Reports


Section 711--Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of Military 
                              Health Care

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a task force to assess the future of military health 
care. The task force would consist of 14 members appointed by 
the Secretary and would be required to develop recommendations 
on the actions the Department of Defense would have to take to 
improve and sustain the military health system over the long-
term. This section would require the Secretary to develop a 
plan based on the recommendations of the task force, and submit 
the plan to the Senate Committee on Armed Services the House 
Committee on Armed Services not later than six months after 
receipt of the task force report.

   Section 712--Study and Plan Relating to Chiropractic Health Care 
                                Services

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan for providing chiropractic health care services 
to all members of the uniformed services, as required by the 
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398). In addition, this section would 
require the Secretary to study the cost, feasibility, health 
benefit and potential cost savings of providing chiropractic 
care for active duty family members, members of the reserves 
and their family members, and retirees and their family 
members. The study would also include the cost of providing 
chiropractic care on a space available basis in those medical 
treatment facilities currently providing chiropractic care. The 
effects of chiropractic care on readiness and the acceleration 
of the return to duty of the members of the armed forces 
following an injury that can be appropriately treated with 
chiropractic health care services would also be included in the 
study. The Secretary shall submit a report, including the plan 
and the study, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2007.

  Section 713--Comptroller General Study and Report on Defense Health 
                                Program

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
conduct a study of the cost savings projections included by the 
Department of Defense in the fiscal year 2007 budget request 
for the Defense Health Program. The study would include an 
evaluation of the rationale for the Department's calculation of 
the cost and the cost increases of the Defense Health program, 
the amounts paid by beneficiaries for health care, and the 
estimated savings associated with implementation of cost 
sharing increases. Further, the study would include a review of 
the rates of inflation in governmental and non-governmental 
health care programs, as well as other health care indexes. The 
Comptroller General is required to present his findings to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by June 1, 2007.

 Section 714--Transfer of Custody of the Air Force Health Study Assets 
                      to Medical Follow-up Agency

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to notify and contact participants of the Air Force Health 
Study (commonly referred to as the Ranch Hand Study) to obtain 
written consent to transfer their data and biological specimens 
to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science 
by September 30, 2007. The Secretary of the Air Force is 
required to submit a report to the Armed Services Committees of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives on the results of 
the disposition of the assets and must maintain the specimens 
that were not able to be transferred for at least one year 
following submission of the report.

 Section 715--Study on Allowing Dependents of Activated Members of the 
       Reserve Components to Retain Civilian Health Care Coverage

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study on the feasibility of allowing family members 
of reservists who are mobilized to continue health care 
coverage under a civilian health care program. The study would 
include an assessment of the number of family members with 
special health care needs, who would benefit from remaining in 
a member's civilian health plan, the feasibility of reimbursing 
the member for the civilian health coverage and a 
recommendation on the appropriate rate of reimbursement. 
Further, the study would include the feasibility of allowing 
family members of mobilized reservists, who do not have access 
to TRICARE providers, to continue civilian health care 
coverage. Not later than 180 days after enactment, the 
Secretary shall submit a report on the study to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


   Section 721--Costs of Incentive Payments to Employees for TRICARE 
              Enrollment Made Unallowable for Contractors

    This section would establish as unallowable the contract 
costs that result when Department of Defense (DOD) contractors 
pay or otherwise create financial incentives for TRICARE-
eligible employees to use the TRICARE or other government-
sponsored health care programs in lieu of the contractor 
provided health care program. The committee makes this 
recommendation because it believes that neither the DOD nor the 
federal government should be doubly liable for the cost of 
financial incentives paid by DOD contractors to employees to 
enroll in the TRICARE program and still be at risk for the cost 
of providing health care to TRICARE-eligible employees.

 Section 722--Requirement For Military Medical Personnel to be Trained 
                       in Preservation of Remains

    The section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a program requiring each military department to include 
training in the preservation of remains for their health care 
professionals. The committee believes that all medical 
professionals need to be trained in theproper post mortem care 
in theater in order to ensure that the proper preservation of remains 
is accomplished. The committee does not intend for the responsibilities 
of mortuary affairs to become the responsibility of medical 
professionals but rather, under certain circumstances, for medical 
professionals to assist in the preservation of remains.

           Subtitle D--Pharmacy Benefits Program Improvements


     Section 731--TRICARE Pharmacy Program Cost-Share Requirements

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish beneficiary cost sharing requirements for the TRICARE 
Mail Order Pharmacy program that are the same as for generic 
and formulary drugs provided to beneficiaries at military 
treatment facilities. At present, beneficiaries are not charged 
for generic and formulary drugs obtained through the military 
treatment facilities. Further, the section would limit the cost 
sharing requirements for drugs provided through the TRICARE 
retail pharmacy program to amounts not more than $6 for generic 
drugs, $16 for formulary drugs and $22 for non-formulary drugs. 
The committee makes these recommendations in order to provide 
incentives to beneficiaries to make greater use of the TRICARE 
Mail Order Pharmacy Program. The cost sharing schedules 
established by this section would end December 31, 2007.

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

                                OVERVIEW

    Simply put, the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition 
process is broken. The ability of the Department to conduct the 
large scale acquisitions required to ensure our future national 
security is a concern of the committee. The rising costs and 
lengthening schedules of major defense acquisition programs 
lead to more expensive platforms fielded in fewer numbers. The 
committee's concerns extend to all three key components of the 
Acquisition process including requirements generation, 
acquisition and contracting, and financial management.
    The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System 
(JCIDS) and Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) are not 
operating as envisioned. The Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (USD(AT&L)) is failing to 
control spiraling costs of major defense acquisition programs. 
As a result, programs to replace key weapons systems are 
attempting to place all necessary and imagined capabilities 
onto developing platforms. The JCIDS/JROC process is under 
intense pressure to ensure that a follow-on system meets all 
the military departments' current, future and anticipated 
needs. Consequently, by relying on one system to meet all the 
necessary requirements, the Department is increasing the costs 
and development time to field new systems. Ultimately, this 
process results in low quantities of higher priced systems 
delivered on a longer schedule.
    The unintended consequence of these pressures is a JCIDS/
JROC process reflecting a culture of forced cooperation, where 
the members must approve other military department's programs 
in order to have their programs approved. The ``jointness'' 
required in the JROC process creates a culture where each 
member faces pressure to accept the criticality of approving a 
new system for their sister service. The process also 
encourages military departments to request expensive added 
capabilities on systems, paid for by other departments in the 
name of jointness.
    In the wake of a ten-year decrease in the acquisition 
workforce, the Department is facing a critical shortage of 
certain acquisition professionals with technical skills related 
to systems engineering, program management and cost estimation. 
While Congress has directed this decrease in the acquisition 
workforce over the past decade, the committee is dissatisfied 
with the Department's approach to these statutory decreases. 
Instead of cutting overhead and minimizing bureaucracy related 
to the acquisition workforce, the Department cut critical 
resources such as production and systems engineers, opting to 
outsource these functions to contractors. As a result of these 
workforce-structure decisions, there is a potential conflict of 
interest developing between contractors acting as ``lead-system 
integrators'' on projects for which they have oversight. In 
addition, the Department has outsourced too many processes 
closely related to ``inherently governmental functions,'' 
ceding de facto project responsibility and decision-making to 
industry. The reductions of the past decade were an effort to 
create a streamline corps of acquisition professionals 
utilizing best practices to obtain the best value for all DOD-
related acquisitions. Instead, there is a critical shortage of 
individuals necessary to ensure systems with the best 
technology on the fastest schedule at the most competitive 
price are available to the Department. The committee believes 
that the Department lacks a coherent strategic human capital 
plan for the future of the acquisition workforce. A strategy is 
necessary to define and shape the DOD's future workforce. One 
essential focus of this strategy should be the continuity of 
program managers. The committee recommends that the tenure of 
program managers be extended to ensure program stability. In 
addition, the committee believes the strategy should focus on 
the value of systems engineers in ensuring affordability and 
producability of future systems.
    Furthermore, training programs at the Defense Acquisition 
University need to expand their focus beyond just the 
contracting side of acquisition. The Department should create 
training programs that will ensure requirements personnel and 
financial managers are adequately trained. The Department 
should also seek to integrate acquisition and financial 
management information technology systems to ensure 
interoperability.
    The Deputy Secretary of Defense recently commissioned a 
comprehensive overview of the acquisition process. The Defense 
Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) consisted of a panel 
of leading acquisition experts from both the government and 
industry. Their review provided a series of recommendations 
related to defense acquisition reform. Of note is a 
recommendation to have the JROC presided over by an objective 
civilian--possibly the USD(AT&L). The DAPA report also found 
the JCIDS/JROC process does not adequately prioritize 
requirements provided by the combatant commanders, whom DAPA 
believes should have a greater say in determining requirements 
for future programs. Additionally, the committee recommends 
that the Department consider a prompt transition to a 
capabilities based acquisition system where combatant 
commanders are considered the major stakeholders and the 
military services act primarily as implementers.
    Based on the recommendations of the DAPA report, the 
committee believes that the model for the future DOD 
acquisition system should be considered by determining 
requirements based primarily on capabilities needed by 
combatant commanders. A revised JCIDS/JROC process could 
objectively validate programs and these validated ``joint'' 
capability requirements could be executed by the military 
services, which would conduct acquisition and program 
management functions to deliver the combatant commanders 
identified ``joint'' capability ratherthan focusing on service 
specific solutions. In addition, the Department should further consider 
``competing'' missions among the services. This does not mean that one 
service will only conduct one mission with one platform. Instead, the 
services should compete at the design and concept level to encourage a 
creative means of accomplishing missions with new and innovative 
solutions.
    Ultimately, the Department must carefully consider its 
ability to cost effectively put metal on targets. Some missions 
do not require cutting-edge technology to accomplish their 
objectives. The USD(AT&L), in collaboration with the JROC 
should reemphasize the need to focus on ``best value'' as it 
relates to accomplishing current and future DOD missions.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                Major Defense Acquisition Program Reform

    The committee enacted major reform of the acquisition 
process for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) through 
two sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163). In particular, section 
801 required the certification of numerous requirements related 
to technological maturity, affordability, alternative 
acquisition strategies and compliance with relevant Department 
of Defense policies, regulations and directives, prior to 
approval of Milestone B for a MDAP. Section 802 rewrote the 
``Nunn-McCurdy'' amendment (10 U.S.C. 2433), to prevent 
rebaselining of original baseline estimates for MDAPs. It also 
redefined the thresholds at which Congress requires 
notification. In particular, section 802 defined a 
``significant cost growth threshold'' as programs that exceed 
15 percent over the current baseline estimate or 30 percent 
over the original baseline estimate and a ``critical cost 
growth threshold'' as programs that exceed 25 percent over the 
current baseline estimate or 50 percent over the original 
baseline estimate. Notably, after enactment of section 802, in 
the first submission of the Selected Acquisition Report, the 
Department reported 36 programs in breach of either the 
``significant'' or ``critical'' cost growth thresholds. The 
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit a consolidated 
report describing efforts taken to implement major defense 
acquisition reform, as implemented by sections 801 and 802 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163). The report shall be delivered to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by March 1, 2007.

                          Prime Vendor Program

    The committee understands that the overall purpose of the 
Prime Vendor Program is to streamline supply chain management, 
lower overall costs to the government, and improve services to 
military customers by allowing them to buy commercial products 
directly from a list of pre-established commercial 
distributors. Concerns about the prices of products being 
procured through the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) Prime 
Vendor Program were raised at a hearing before the House 
Committee on Armed Services on November 9, 2005. As a result of 
this hearing, DLA officials recognized the need to improve 
management oversight and internal controls over the program and 
proposed a series of corrective actions. In order to allow time 
for DLA to implement these actions and ensure effective 
results, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 
review the actions taken by the Department of Defense to 
improve the Prime Vendor Program and submit a report to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by March 1, 2007.

                Special Operations Command Requirements

    The committee recognizes that title 10, United States Code, 
grants U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) specific 
acquisition authority for special operations peculiar 
equipment, material, supplies and services. The committee is 
concerned that USSOCOM is not fully capable of executing this 
Department-like authority under current Department of Defense 
policies and practices, which is particularly troubling because 
of the key role USSOCOM plays in current combat operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and in the global war on terrorism. The 
committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to consider 
the unique role and authorities of USSOCOM as the Department 
makes needed reforms to its acquisitions and logistics 
processes, to ensure USSOCOM can efficiently, responsively, and 
effectively execute authorities granted in title 10.

                     Undefinitized Contract Actions

    Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs), also known as 
``unpriced'' contracts or ``letter'' contracts, authorize 
contractors to start work and incur costs before reaching a 
final agreement on terms and conditions, including price. The 
committee recognizes UCAs can be helpful to support urgent 
operational needs, but such contracts are not a desirable form 
of contracting because they place the Department of Defense in 
an unfavorable negotiating position and do not provide 
incentives to achieve cost controls, since the contractor 
operates in a cost-plus mode until negotiations are complete. 
The committee directs the Comptroller General to undertake a 
study to determine if the Department is properly using such 
contracts and pricing them on time. At a minimum, the committee 
directs the Comptroller General determine: (1) Why the 
Department is using UCAs; and (2) whether certain sufficient 
management controls restrict the use of such contracts in 
urgent situations, ensure limited scope modifications and 
appropriate profits. The committee directs the Comptroller 
General to submit a report on the finding of this study to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by March 1, 2007.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs


  Section 801--Requirements Management Certification Training Program

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with 
the Defense Acquisition University, to establish competency 
requirements and a certification training program to improve 
the ability of civilian and military personnel of the 
Department of Defense to generate requirements that are added 
to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). This section 
would require instruction on the interdependence and interfaces 
between the requirements generation system; the planning, 
programming, budgeting and execution system; and the defense 
acquisition system that collectively contribute to the outcomes 
of MDAPs. This section would require the UnderSecretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to ensure compliance 
with the training program.

 Section 802--Additional Requirements Relating to Technical Data Rights

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish regulations to ensure that a major system developed 
with federal or private funds acquires sufficient technical 
data to allow competition for contracts required for 
sustainment of the system. This section would also require any 
contract for a major system to include price and delivery 
options for acquiring, at any point during the lifecycle of the 
system, major elements of technical data not acquired at the 
time of initial contract award. The regulations would establish 
a standard for acquiring rights in technical data to enable the 
lowest possible lifecycle cost for the item or process 
acquired.
    The committee notes, in recent years, acquisition program 
managers have minimized their purchases of technical data 
rights for new weapons systems. The committee understands that 
guidance issued in the 1990s intentionally sought to reverse 
the previous policy on technical data rights, which may have 
inappropriately assumed that all rights to technical data 
should be purchased, even in unnecessary situations. This 
section would require program managers to negotiate price 
options for acquiring additional data rights, at the time of 
award, when the government has maximum leverage in 
negotiations. The committee believes that this balanced 
approach will require program managers to buy those data rights 
necessary to minimize lifecycle cost without requiring the 
purchase of unneeded technical data rights.

  Section 803--Study and Report on Revisions to Selected Acquisition 
                          Report Requirements

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in coordination with 
the service acquisition executives of each military department, 
to conduct a study on revisions to requirements related to 
Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs), as set forth in section 
2432 of title 10, United States Code.
    The SAR provides the committee with a critical tool for 
providing oversight of major defense acquisition programs. The 
SAR gives the committee access to clear and regular information 
on program progress, including information of a classified 
nature. The committee understands that the elements currently 
required to be included in the SAR have not been updated for a 
number of years. Some important elements of program progress 
are not included in the current SAR, and in some cases, 
information which may have previously been a good measure of 
program progress may no longer be as relevant to program 
oversight.
    The committee recognizes that in order for the SAR to be 
useful to both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the 
committee, it should focus on those measures of program 
progress for major defense acquisition programs that are the 
most useful for oversight across a broad range of programs, 
without placing an undue reporting burden. One element in the 
current SAR that is clearly critical to congressional oversight 
is the unit cost information which provides the basis for 
reporting of cost growth under the Nunn-McCurdy Act (10 U.S.C. 
2433). However, many elements of program progress beyond unit 
cost are essential to both departmental and congressional 
oversight. The committee believes that a revised SAR should be 
based upon the normal, internal-working documents utilized by 
the program manager on a day-to-day basis and not created 
exclusively in response to a congressional reporting 
requirement. The SAR should be a tool that provides both 
appropriate congressional oversight, validates the health of a 
program, and demonstrates that the program management 
techniques being employed are appropriate. DOD's 
recommendations shall be submitted to the committee by March 1, 
2007.

Section 804--Quarterly Updates on Implementation of Acquisition Reform 
                      in the Department of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide quarterly reports to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the 
implementation of plans to reform the defense acquisition 
system. The updates would cover implementation of reforms of 
the processes for Acquisition, including generation of 
requirements, award of contracts, and financial management. The 
quarterly updates would include, at a minimum, consideration of 
recommendations made by:
          (1) The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment 
        Panel;
          (2) The Defense Science Board Summer Study on 
        Transformation;
          (3) The Center for Strategic and International 
        Studies: Beyond-Goldwater-Nichols Study;
          (4) The Quadrennial Defense Review; and
          (5) The Committee Defense Review of the House 
        Committee on Armed Services.
    The first quarterly update would be required no later than 
45 days after the enactment of this Act and the first day of 
each successive quarter. The requirement would terminate on the 
first day of the quarter in which the Selected Acquisition 
Reports indicate that no new programs have breached either the 
significant cost growth threshold or the critical cost growth 
threshold.
    The ability of the Department of Defense to analyze and 
synthesize these reform recommendations into a series of 
meaningful and actionable implementation plans concerns the 
committee. In the past, bureaucratic impediments, changing 
senior leadership, and numerous other factors prevented 
implementation of major acquisition reform despite 
comprehensive studies on the subject. In particular, the 
committee notes that the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on 
Defense (1986), commonly known as the ``Packard Commission,'' 
recommended numerous reforms to the acquisition system that, 
despite the efforts of Congress and the Department, have not 
been fully realized. Nearly twenty years later, the four major 
acquisition reform studies of 2005 identify the same challenges 
identified by the ``Packard Commission'' including rampant cost 
growth, unreliable cost estimates, and requirements relying on 
immature technology increasing overall program cost. The 
committee is concerned about the ability of the Department to 
solve these decades' old problems.

 Section 805--Establishment of Defense Challenge Process for Critical 
  Cost Growth Threshold Breaches in Major Defense Acquisition Programs

    This section would amend section 2359b of title 10, United 
States Code, to establish requirements for Defense Acquisition 
Challenge Program proposals (referred to as ``challenge 
proposals'') solicited in response to a critical cost growth 
threshold breach for a major defense acquisition program 
(MDAP). A critical cost growth threshold breach occurs when an 
MDAP has exceeded the critical cost growth threshold 
established by section 2433 of title 10, United States Code. 
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) to issue a 
solicitation for challenge proposals that may result in near-
term improvements in affordability for an MDAP that has 
experienced a critical cost growth breach, in addition to the 
current Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (DACP) annual 
broad agency announcement and unsolicited proposal processes. 
The committee believes that challenge proposals for critical 
cost growth breaches warrant expeditious procedures for both 
preliminary and full review and evaluation. Therefore, this 
section would require critical cost growth breach DACP 
solicitations to be issued within 14 days following the date 
that the Selected Acquisition Report on the MDAP is submitted 
to Congress, as described in sections 2433(g) and 2432(f) of 
title 10, United States Code. Such a solicitation should 
provide sufficient detail on the cost and schedule variances 
and the design, engineering, manufacturing, and technology 
integration issues contributing to the MDAP cost growth, to 
allow responders to prepare responsive proposals for 
consideration in no less than 30 days. This section would 
require a panel established by USD(AT&L) to complete a 
preliminary evaluation of such challenge proposals within 60 
days following the date that the Selected Acquisition Report on 
the MDAP is submitted to Congress. The panel would also be 
required to share the results of its preliminary evaluation 
with the Secretary of Defense to aid in the completion of the 
Secretary's written certification required by section 
2433(e)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code.
    In the event a critical cost breach challenge proposal is 
found to have merit during the full review and evaluation 
process, this section would require the MDAP to fund such a 
challenge proposal following contract award. In the event a 
critical cost breach challenge proposal is found to have merit 
upon preliminary review, but later receives an unfavorable 
evaluation during full review by the office carrying out the 
MDAP, this section would require the MDAP program manager to 
provide a narrative explaining the rationale for the 
unfavorable evaluation to the panel that conducted the 
preliminary evaluation. If the panel does not agree with the 
MDAP program manager's rationale, the panel may request that 
the MDAP program manager reconsider. If after further 
consideration, the MDAP program manager still evaluates the 
challenge proposal unfavorably, the full review and evaluation 
is complete. Upon the conclusion of full review and evaluation, 
USD(AT&L) shall provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees detailing the rationale for each unfavorable 
evaluation and documenting the dissenting opinion of the panel, 
as applicable. This section would require full review and 
evaluation and the report to the congressional defense 
committees, as necessary, to be completed within 60 days 
following the preliminary evaluation by the panel.
    In addition, this section would amend section 2433 of title 
10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out an additional assessment under the requirements of 
paragraph (e)(2) of such section, to assess the availability of 
alternative components, subsystems, or systems that may result 
in near-term improvements in affordability for any MDAP that 
has exceeded the critical cost growth threshold. The Secretary 
shall carry out this assessment through DACP.
    This section would further amend section 2433 of title 10, 
United States Code, to require the Secretary to include an 
additional statement in the written certification required by 
paragraph (e)(2) of such section, stating that DACP, having 
issued a competitive solicitation for critical cost breach 
challenge proposals and having completed a preliminary review 
of proposals received, found no promising proposals meriting 
full review and evaluation.
    Finally, this section would also amend section 2433(g) of 
title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary to 
include a description of design, engineering, manufacturing, 
and technology integration issues in the narrative of 
significant occurrences contributing to critical cost growth, 
which is a component of the Selected Acquisition Report 
required in section 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code.

  Section 806--Market Research Required for Major Defense Acquisition 
               Programs Before Proceeding to Milestone B

    This section would require certification that market 
research has been conducted prior to technology development to 
reduce duplication of existing technology and products. The 
committee believes that conducting market research before 
issuing a technology development contract will prevent 
duplication of existing technology and reduce program costs 
before a major defense acquisition program receives Milestone B 
approval. The committee urges the Department to consider new 
and creative means of ensuring that appropriate market research 
is conducted to advance technological development of unique 
capabilities and eliminate reinvention by using proven 
technologies available in the marketplace.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) may not comply with the requirements of part 10 of the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation related to market research, 
which results in the lack of reasonable inclusion of large and 
small businesses with cost-effective and superior technologies 
in defense contracting. The committee is concerned that current 
DOD acquisition practices might limit the use of innovative 
solutions from both large and small businesses and fail to 
create incentives for DOD prime contractors to embrace 
innovative technologies from large and small businesses that 
are commercially available. Traditional cost-reimbursable labor 
contracts under the cost-plus-fixed-fee or cost-plus-award-fee 
structure may increase the difficulty of offering proven 
capabilities to the Department by inadvertently rewarding 
higher expenditures and reducing incentives to cut costs. The 
committee notes that cost-plus-percentage-of-cost contracts are 
prohibited by statute and encourages the Department to take 
action to ensure that the intent of this prohibition is 
followed.

             Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management


Section 811--Applicability of Statutory Executive Compensation Cap Made 
                              Prospective

    This section would amend section 808(e)(2) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85) to clarify that the underlying provision is prospective 
from the date of enactment. Currently, compensation of certain 
executives in excess of a ``benchmark'' set by regulations is 
unallowable. As a result, in General Dynamics Corporation v. 
United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 514 (Fed. Cl. 2000), the court held 
that application of the statutory cap to a contract awarded 
prior to the enactment section 808(e)(2) constituted a breach 
of contract, and that the U.S. Government was liable for breach 
damages due to the retroactive application of the cap. This 
section would still subject executive compensation to a test of 
reasonableness.

 Section 812--Prohibition on Procurement From Beneficiaries of Foreign 
                               Subsidies

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
entering into a contract with a foreign person (including a 
joint venture, cooperative organization, partnership or 
contracting team), who has received a subsidy from the 
government of a foreign country that is a member of the World 
Trade Organization, if the United States has requested a 
consultation with that foreign country on the basis that the 
subsidy is prohibited under the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.

    Section 813--Time-Certain Development for Department of Defense 
                Information Technology Business Systems

    This section would require that Department of Defense 
information technology business systems be fielded within five 
years of the system entering the technology development phase 
of the acquisition process, known as Milestone A approval. The 
committee is concerned that many large information technology 
acquisition programs begin with great promise, yet linger in 
the development phase for many years without delivering any 
useful products to the Department. This section would limit the 
time allowed for development of such systems.

      Section 814--Establishment of Panel on Contracting Integrity

    This section would establish a panel on contracting 
integrity to eliminate areas of vulnerability of the defense 
contracting system to fraud, waste and abuse. The panel would 
be chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and include the 
service acquisition executive of each military department, the 
Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Director of 
the Defense Logistics Agency, the Director of the Defense 
Contract Management Agency and the Director of the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency. This section would require the panel to 
submit an annual report on its activities to the congressional 
defense committees.

Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 
                            and Limitations


Section 821--Extension of Special Temporary Contract Closeout Authority

    This section would allow the Department of Defense to 
maximize its efforts to close contracts by extending the 
authority. Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) as amended, 
permits the Department to close contracts entered prior to 
October 1, 1996, provided the contracts are administratively 
complete and the financial account has an unreconciled balance, 
either positive or negative, that is less than $0.1 million.

  Section 822--Limitation on Contracts for the Acquisition of Certain 
                                Services

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
entering into a contract for covered services if the amount of 
the contract exceeds 75 percent of the estimated value of the 
asset required for the provision of services under the contract 
or exceeds $150.0 million in payments over the life of the 
contract.

    Section 823--Use of Federal Supply Schedules by State and Local 
Governments for Goods and Services for Recovery from Natural Disasters, 
  Terrorism, or Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, or Radiological Attack

    This section would provide the Administrator of General 
Services the authority to allow State or local governments to 
use General Services Administration's (GSA) federal supply 
schedules for goods and services to facilitate recovery from 
natural disasters, terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, 
or radiological attack. This section would build on the 
successful cooperative purchasing program authorized in section 
211 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347) which 
opened GSA's schedules for information technology for use by 
State and local governments.

 Section 824--Waivers To Extend Task Order Contracts for Advisory and 
                          Assistance Services

    This section would amend section 2304b(b) of title 10, 
United States Code, and section 253i(b) of title 41, United 
States Code, to allow the head of an agency to issue a waiver 
to extend an Advisory and Assistance Services (AAS) contract up 
to ten years maximum through five one-year options, if he 
determines in writing that the contract provides engineering or 
technical services of such a unique and substantial technical 
nature that recompetition is harmful to the continuity of the 
program; that recompetition would create a large disruption in 
ongoing support due to prime contract recompetition when the 
Department of Defense has a successfully performing prime 
contractor; and the Department would endure program risk during 
critical program stages due to loss of program corporate 
knowledge of ongoing program activities.
    The committee is concerned about the Department's growing 
reliance on AAS contracts. This section would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
April 1, 2007. The report would include the following 
information:
          (1) Methods used by the Department to identify a 
        contract as an AAS contract;
          (2) Number of AAS contracts awarded by the Department 
        in the five years prior to the enactment of this Act;
          (3) Average annual expenditures by the Department for 
        AAS contracts;
          (4) Average length of AAS contracts;
          (5) Number of AAS contracts recompeted and awarded to 
        the previous award winner;
          (6) Number of AAS contractors who previously 
        qualified as a small business but no longer qualify as 
        a small business for a recompetition;
          (7) Number of AAS contracts required for a period of 
        greater than five years and a justification as to why 
        those services are required for greater than five 
        years, including rationale for not performing the 
        service inside the Department;
          (8) Percentage of AAS contracts awarded by the 
        Department in the five years prior to the enactment of 
        this Act for assistance in the introduction and 
        transfer of engineering and technical knowledge for 
        fielded systems, equipment, and components; and
          (9) Steps taken by the Department to prevent 
        organizational conflicts of interest in the use of AAS 
        contracts.
    This waiver authority would be ineffective if the Secretary 
of Defense fails to issue the required report by April 1, 2007.

            Section 825--Enhanced Access for Small Business

    This section would amend section 9(a) of the Contract 
Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 608) to provide that the Armed 
Services Board of Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of 
Contract Appeals shall provide for expedited disposition of 
appeals of small businesses where the amount in dispute is 
$150,000 or less.

    Section 826--Procurement Goal for Hispanic-Serving Institutions

    This section would amend section 2323 of title 10, United 
States Code to extend the contract goals for small 
disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher 
education to include Hispanic-serving institutions.

 Section 827--Prohibition on Defense Contractors Requiring Licenses or 
          Fees for Use of Military Likenesses and Designations

    This section would require that any contract entered into 
by the Department of Defense include a provision prohibiting 
the contractor from requiring toy and hobby manufacturers, 
distributors, or merchants to obtain licenses from or pay fees 
to the contractor for the use of military likenesses or 
designations on items provided under the contract.

      Subtitle D--United States Defense Industrial Base Provisions


  Section 831--Protection of Strategic Materials Critical to National 
                                Security

    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, by 
inserting section 2533b, ``Requirement to buy strategic 
materials critical to national security from American sources; 
exceptions.'' This section would prohibit the use of 
appropriated funds for the procurement of a specialty metal or 
an item critical to national security, as determined by the 
Strategic Materials Protection Board, unless the item is 
reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States.
    The committee believes this section will build on the 
strong tradition of section 2533a of title 10, United States 
Code, known as the ``Berry Amendment,'' while simultaneously 
addressing certain issues related to the procurement of 
specialty metals. In particular, the committee is concerned by 
claims that confusion exists over the applicability of the 
Berry Amendment to all tiers of the supply chain. This section 
would clarify the original intent of the Berry Amendment by 
noting that the section applies to subcontracts at any tier 
under a prime contract, as well as the prime contract. This 
section would maintain all current exceptions and waivers to 
the current Berry Amendment. The committee notes that 
application of this section would allow foreign governments to 
purchase only specialty metals or items critical to national 
security from the United States or from their own domestic 
suppliers. The committee believes that allowing foreign 
governments to purchase specialty metals from any source not 
only defeats the intent of the Berry Amendment but also creates 
a grave risk to national security. This section would prohibit 
the practice of delivering non-compliant components to the 
federal government without charge in order to be considered 
compliant with the Berry Amendment.
    The committee is aware that certain suppliers currently 
claim that they are inadvertently non-compliant with the Berry 
Amendment as it relates to specialty metals. This section would 
allow a 12-month ``get well'' period for suppliers at all 
levels of the supply chain to become compliant with section 
2533b of title 10, United States Code. This section would 
require public notice of non-compliant suppliers on 
Fedbizoops.gov, a website that allows the commercial venders to 
seek federal markets for their products, written notification 
of non-compliance to the supplier and prime contractor, and 
receipt of a compliance plan from the non-compliant supplier 
and prime contractor. This section would allow a waiver for 
inadvertent non-compliance to be granted only after public 
posting of non-compliance and the opportunity for a challenger 
to offer the federal government the opportunity to substitute 
the non-compliant components with compliant components. This 
inadvertent non-compliance waiver would require approval from 
the secretary of the military department concerned.

           Section 832--Strategic Materials Protection Board

    This section would establish a Strategic Material 
Protection Board. The board would be established by the 
Secretary of Defense and include the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Intelligence, the Secretary of the Army, the 
Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force. The 
committee believes that the Department of Defense should create 
a process to identify items that are critical to national 
security. In particular, the committee notes that certain 
materials, should they be unavailable domestically would 
severely impair our national security. This section would 
require the board to publish a list of items determined to be 
critical to national security. Additionally, this section would 
prohibit the removal of specialty metals listed in section 
2533b of title 10, United States Code, from the list of items 
critical to national security.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


      Importance of Placing Foreign Area Officers in Combat Units

    The committee notes the contribution made by Foreign Area 
Officers (FAOs) to the military services, in terms of their 
knowledge of the language, culture, and personalities of their 
regions of expertise. While this contribution is routinely 
limited to strategic levels of operations, the committee 
believes that this contribution proves valuable at every level 
of military operations. To encourage that end, the military 
services should provide sufficient numbers of FAOs so that each 
regional combatant commander can provide at least one FAO to 
each subordinate combat units commanded by a two-star general 
or flag officer. The committee recommends that these FAOs be 
assigned to the policy and plans staff of the subordinate 
commands to allow the command to benefit from their regional 
expertise in its exercise of command and control functions.

     Increased Budgetary Confidence Level Implementation in Space 
                              Acquisition

    Historically, space acquisitions have been budgeted to a 50 
percent certainty that the final cost will be at or below the 
estimate. The committee believes that cost estimating at a 50 
percent confidence level leaves little management reserve, 
reduces probability of program execution, and increases total 
program costs by requiring budget and schedule adjustments 
during execution. Furthermore, the committee believes that 
budgeting to an 80 percent confidence level mitigates problems 
caused by inaccurate cost estimating and therefore, encourages 
the Secretary of Defense to raise the required budgetary 
confidence level of all new and restructured space programs 
from 50 percent to 80 percent.

                   National Security Space Management

    The committee recognizes efforts within the national 
security space community to enhance relationships and 
coordinate activities that span acquisition, research and 
development, and operations in order to create more responsive 
and agile space capabilities to support critical intelligence 
and defense missions. In particular, the committee recognizes 
the need for the Department of Defense's Executive Agent for 
Space, the Director, National Reconnaissance Office, and the 
Under Secretary of the Air Force to maintain close coordination 
in oversight and management of space capabilities.
    The committee requests the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, submit 
a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2007, describing the roles and responsibilities of each of 
these positions with respect to resource and staffing 
requirements, program development, requirements processes, and 
acquisition authority. The committee also requests a 
description of the additional roles, responsibilities, and 
authorities of the Director, National Reconnaissance Office, as 
the Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for 
Intelligence Space Technology.

Report on Developing Expertise in Emerging National Security Challenges

    The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
should consider how best to develop expertise in emerging 
national security challenges and distribute appropriately such 
knowledge throughout the Department, including the military 
services. For example, the committee notes the role that the 
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs within the 
National Defense University has played in developing knowledge 
and expertise in a focused area of military importance. The 
committee believes that DOD personnel currently may be 
benefiting, or may benefit in the future, from similar 
concentration in other key defense and security areas, such as 
stability and support operations.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2007, a report 
that identifies key defense and security areas and the 
capabilities required to educate DOD personnel appropriately. 
The report shall note what capabilities the Department already 
has in these areas and ways in which the Department may develop 
these capabilities as competencies, whether through the 
development of Centers of Excellence, the fusing of existing 
institutions, integration into the professional military 
education curriculum, or any other steps the Secretary may 
recommend.

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

    The committee believes that the relevance and importance of 
cultural knowledge, regional expertise, and linguistic 
capability will remain critical to national security for 
decades to come, in the long war and in future wars. The 
committee commends the Department for its initiative in respect 
to coordinating and setting a direction for language skills, 
and commends the services for the multiple initiatives they 
have taken in regards to cultural training.
    The committee believes it may be beneficial to synchronize 
efforts in the cultural training and regional expertise fields 
across the Department by creating an office within the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense that would provide oversight for 
the Department's cultural and linguistic policies and training. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2007, a report on the 
options to provide such oversight, to include consideration of 
the establishment of an office within the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense for that function, and the resources 
required to create such an office.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management


  Section 901--Standardization of Statutory References to ``National 
   Security System'' within Laws Applicable to Department of Defense

    This section would amend sections 2222, 2223, and 2315 of 
title 10, United States Code, to ensure the definition of 
national security systems contained in title 10 is consistent 
with the definition provided in the Federal Information 
Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002 (Public Law 107-347). 
FISMA applies federal government wide and provides a broader 
definition of national security systems than contained in title 
10, expanding the term to apply to all systems used for 
classified data, as well as those operated by a contractor of 
an agency or other organization on behalf of the agency.

    Section 902--Correction of Reference to Predecessor of Defense 
                       Information Systems Agency

    This section would amend section 193 of title 10, United 
States Code, to reflect the current name of the Defense 
Information Systems Agency.

        Section 903--Addition to Membership of Specified Council

    This section would amend section 179 of title 10, United 
States Code, to include the Commander, United States Strategic 
Command, on the Nuclear Weapons Council.

Section 904--Consolidation and Standardization of Authorities Relating 
     to Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies

    This section would streamline the management of Department 
of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies, which to date 
have operated under different authorities. This section would 
allow the Centers to pursue research in addition to 
communication and exchange of ideas involving U.S. and foreign 
military officers, civilian governmental personnel, and non-
governmental personnel.
    This section would allow foreign governments and U.S. 
federal agencies to fund foreign participation in center 
activities and the Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement 
of costs of activities for military officers and civilian 
defense and security officials from developing countries. This 
section would continue an annual requirement for the Secretary 
of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the regional 
centers' status, objectives, budgets, international 
participation, and foreign gifts and donations.

    Section 905--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the 
                Department of the Navy and Marine Corps

    This section would designate the Department of the Navy as 
the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change the 
title of its Secretary to Secretary of the Navy and Marine 
Corps. This provision would formally recognize the 
responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over 
both the Navy and Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' status as 
an equal partner with the Navy.

                      Subtitle B--Space Activities


      Section 911--Designation of Successor Organizations for the 
     Disestablished Interagency Global Positioning Executive Board

    This section would amend section 2281 of title 10, United 
States Code, to reflect the new organizational structure 
created by the United States Space-Based Positioning, 
Navigation, and Timing Policy issued December 8, 2004, and 
permit continued multi-agency funding for this activity.

Section 912--Extension of Authority for Pilot Program for Provision of 
  Space Surveillance Network Services to Non-United States Government 
                                Entities

    This section would extend the expiring authority of the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program that would 
allow non-U.S. government entities to purchase space 
surveillance network services from assets owned or controlled 
by the Department of Defense through September 30, 2009. The 
current authority would expire on May 22, 2007.

              Section 913--Operationally Responsive Space

    This section would require establishment of an 
Operationally Responsive Space Program Office, and would 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees setting forth a plan for 
acquisition of capabilities for operationally responsive space 
support to the warfighter.

             Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Program


 Section 921--Transfer to Secretary of the Army of Responsibility for 
            Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program

    This section would transfer program management 
responsibility for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives 
(ACWA) program from the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) to the 
Secretary of the Army by January 1, 2007; would provide for 
management of the program as a part of the Department of the 
Army organization for management of the chemical weapons 
demilitarization program as specified in section 1521 of title 
50, United States Code; and would require the Secretary of the 
Army to implement fully the alternative technologies previously 
selected for destruction of lethal chemical munitions at Pueblo 
Chemical Depot, Colorado, and Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky. 
The transfer of management of the ACWA program to the Secretary 
of the Army would in no way diminish the responsibility of the 
USD (AT&L) for oversight of the chemical weapons 
demilitarization program, including ACWA, nor the USD (AT&L)'s 
responsibility as defense acquisition executive for the 
acquisition category 1D program.

  Section 922--Comptroller General Review of Cost-Benefit Analysis of 
 Off-Site Versus On-Site Treatment and Disposal of Hydrolysate Derived 
 from Neutralization of VX Nerve Gas at Newport Chemical Depot, Indiana

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
review and report to Congress by December 1, 2006, on the 
adequacy of the cost benefit analysis prepared by the Secretary 
of the Army comparing options to treat and dispose of the 
hazardous material that is a byproduct of the process of 
neutralizing VX nerve gas stored at Newport Chemical Depot, 
Indiana. This section would also prohibit the Secretary from 
proceeding with any action to transport this hazardous 
material, or hydrolysate, until 60 days after the Comptroller 
General's report is received by Congress. Pending enactment of 
this section, the committee intends that the Secretary of the 
Army take no action to transport hydrolysate from Newport Army 
Depot until the actions that would be required by this section 
are completed.

   Section 923--Sense of Congress Regarding the Safe and Expeditious 
                      Disposal of Chemical Weapons

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
process used for selecting a site for remote disposal of 
hazardous material remaining after the initial processing of 
chemical munitions should be free from political influence and 
that a process similar to that used for base closure and 
realignment be considered for adoption.

                Subtitle D--Intelligence-Related Matters


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

    This section would amend section 431(a) of title 10, United 
States Code, to repeal the termination of authority for the 
Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial activities as 
security for intelligence collection activities abroad.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                        Counter-Drug Activities


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $926.9 million for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $131.9 
million, for operational tempo which is included within the 
operating budgets of the military services. The fiscal year 
2007 budget is organized to address four broad national 
priorities: (1) international support; (2) domestic support; 
(3) intelligence and technology support; and (4) demand 
reduction.
    The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 
2007 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:

FY07 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request...............  $926,890
International Support.........................................  $435,919
Domestic Support..............................................  $205,416
Intelligence and Technology Support...........................  $151,322
Demand Reduction..............................................  $134,233
Recommended Decreases
    SOUTHCOM..................................................
    NORTHCOM..................................................    $7,000
    PACOM.....................................................    $2,000
    CENTCOM...................................................    $1,000
    Intelligence and Technology...............................    $2,000
    Support...................................................    $4,000
Recommended Increases
    Southwestern Border Fence.................................   $10,000
    Maritime Domain Awareness.................................    $6,000
Recommendation................................................  $926,890

                       Items of Special Interest


Budget requests

    The fiscal year 2007 drug interdiction and counter-drug 
activities budget request of $926.9 million covers all 
counternarcotics resources in the Department of Defense (DOD) 
with the exception of those resources in the operating budget 
for the military services for operational tempo, military 
personnel, and military construction. The committee notes that 
the services' budget requests include an additional $131.9 
million for operational tempo expenses related to counter-drug 
activities in their respective appropriations. The committee, 
therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense to integrate the 
associated operational tempo costs contained in the services' 
budgets for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities into 
DOD's drug interdiction and counter-drug activities budget 
justification material for fiscal year 2008, and thereafter. 
The committee directs that the budget justification material 
which lists drug resources by function shall include the 
associated operational tempo costs to the services in the total 
budget request by the Department for counter-drug activities.

Counternarcotics policy for Afghanistan

    The committee supports the efforts of the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to use drug interdiction and counternarcotics 
resources to support the global war on terrorism and notes that 
there are clear links between international narcotics 
trafficking and international terrorism. In that regard, the 
committee supports DOD's unified campaign against narcotics 
trafficking and activities by organizations designated as 
terrorist organizations in Colombia and Afghanistan. The 
committee notes with regards to Afghanistan, the Department has 
responded to requests for support from the Department of State, 
the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Government of the 
United Kingdom to help the Government of Afghanistan develop 
the capacity to address the country's serious and growing 
narcotics problem. The committee believes that the high level 
of DOD support to the Department of State in building law 
enforcement capacity in Afghanistan is the correct approach.
    The committee is concerned that despite the development of 
an interagency implementation plan for U.S. counternarcotics 
activities in Afghanistan and the surrounding region, the 
Department is being asked to fund and manage activities that 
are well beyond its core mission. The Department must continue 
to play an important role in the international andinteragency 
fight against narcotics in Afghanistan, but it must not take on roles 
in which other countries or other agencies of the U.S. Government have 
core capabilities.

Intelligence and technology

    The budget request contained $151.3 million for 
intelligence and technology support.
    The committee understands the importance of intelligence 
and technology in the counternarcotics program. Intelligence 
and technology are used to dismantle narcotics networks and 
terrorist organizations linked to drug trafficking. The 
committee notes that the authorization of funds for 
intelligence and technology will result in increased 
development, testing, evaluation, and deployment of 
technologies that collect and monitor narcotics intelligence on 
land, sea, and in the air.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $147.3 million for 
intelligence and technology, a decrease of $4.0 million. The 
recommended funding represents a significant increase over the 
fiscal year 2006 authorization.

Maritime domain awareness

    The budget request contained $2.5 million for research and 
development of a detection and monitoring domain awareness 
system. This system integrates multiple sensors, databases, and 
anomaly detection tools into a data fusion testbed that 
provides persistent-situational awareness across domains and 
operation systems. One system under development provides wide-
area surveillance, maritime domain awareness, and distributes 
actionable intelligence concerning potential narcotics 
trafficking or terrorist threats. This system operations 
succeeded in a test conducted by Joint Task Force-North and 
will be evaluated during fiscal year 2007 by the Joint 
Interagency Task Force-South and in Colombia.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 
million for this purpose.

Southwest Border Fence

    The committee is concerned that the southwest border 
continues to be a heavily utilized human and drug smuggling 
corridor allowing access into U.S. metropolitan areas from 
Mexico. Since 1990, construction and rehabilitation along this 
prolific drug smuggling corridor has resulted in 7.6 miles of 
double-layer fencing, 59 miles of single fencing, and 169.5 
miles of road. These advances have reduced drug trafficking 
into the region and have eliminated the smuggling corridor.
    Completing the fence construction project in San Diego, 
California, will allow counter-drug assets to be redeployed to 
other areas. The committee supports this fence and road-
building activity in the southwest region. Funds authorized 
within this Act shall be used to complete construction of the 
14-Mile Border Infrastructure System near San Diego, 
California; increase the height of existing border vehicle 
barriers to a minimum of 10 feet; and build an additional 5 
miles of primary fencing east of the Otay Mesa port of entry. 
In addition, not less than $3.0 million shall be used to 
design, plan, deploy and rehabilitate fencing for 15 miles on 
either side of the Laredo, Texas port of entry. Finally, not 
less than $2.0 million shall be used to design, plan, deploy 
and rehabilitate fencing at the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, 
Arizona.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million for this purpose.

U.S. Central Command operations support

    The budget request contained $27.6 million for U.S. Central 
Command (USCENTCOM) and participating nation support for 
USCENTCOM operations. Reductions in support activities are 
planned, in light of other worldwide commitments.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 
million for this purpose.

U.S. Northern Command operations support

    The budget request contained $15.5 million for U.S. 
Northern Command domestic operations support. Reductions in 
support activities are planned, in light of other worldwide 
commitments.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 
million for this purpose.

U.S. Pacific Command operations support

    The budget request contained $27.2 million for U.S. Pacific 
Command (USPACOM) and participating nation support for USPACOM 
operations. Reductions in support activities are planned, in 
light of other worldwide commitments.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 
million for this purpose.

U.S. Southern Command operations support

    The budget request contained $372.7 million for U.S. 
Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) and participating nation support 
for USSOUTHCOM operations. Reductions in support activities are 
planned, in light of other worldwide commitments.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 
million for this purpose.

                            Other Activities


                    Aircraft Carrier Force Structure

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense's 
legislative proposal for fiscal year 2007, included a section 
that would effectively allow retirement of the conventionally-
powered aircraft carrier, USS John F. Kennedy, thereby reducing 
the carrier force structure from 12 to 11 ships.
    The committee believes that the Navy's decision to reduce 
the number of carriers was not based on mission requirements 
analysis; rather, the decision was based on fiscal constraints. 
Section 126 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) amended section 5062 of 
title 10, United States Code, to set a minimum carrier force 
structure of not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers. 
The committee believes the aircraft carrier force structure 
should be maintained at 12 ships in order to meet worldwide 
commitments.
    However, the committee would like to explore options for 
maintaining the USS John F. Kennedy in an operational status 
either within or outside the U.S. Navy, to include the 
possibility of transferring operational control to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2007, that 
examines options for maintaining the USS John F. Kennedy in an 
operational status both within and outside the U.S. Navy. In 
examining the NATO option, the Secretary shall coordinate an 
assessment with the NATO Secretary General. The report shall 
include the cost and manning required, statutory restrictions 
that would preclude transfer of the USS John F. Kennedy to 
organizations or entities outside the U.S. Navy, and a 
classified annex on how the Navy would meet global operational 
requirements with an aircraft carrier force structure of less 
than 12 ships.

              ``Commercial First'' Maritime Sealift Policy

    The committee is aware of recent discussions between the 
U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and the operators of 
U.S. flag vessels concerning the longstanding policy of using 
commercial vessels to transport military cargo when sufficient 
resources are available. Under this policy, the Department of 
Defense is required to, at least annually, determine the number 
of ships it needs to own or have under charter to meet its 
peacetime, contingency and wartime projected requirements. Once 
this ``fleet'' is sized, ships under charter to the U.S. 
Government, or government-owned ships that have been activated 
to full operating status, shall be used to the ``maximum extent 
practicable'' when vessel schedules satisfy cargo delivery 
requirements. Assuring that the multiple components of sealift 
capacity are fully utilized is a difficult balancing act. The 
United States must retain its commercial capacity and 
simultaneously act as good stewards of the taxpayer's dollar 
when government-controlled carriers have been activated and are 
available. The Secretary of Defense has empowered USTRANSCOM to 
ensure that U.S. troops deployed worldwide have the assets they 
need, when they need them. This is a difficult task given the 
wide range of operational demands placed on U.S. armed forces 
at this point in time. This balancing act is not one that lends 
itself to a legislative solution, nor is one warranted. The 
committee is confident that satisfactory solutions are 
attainable through continuing dialogue.

                  Department of Defense Civil Support

    The committee commends the men and women of the U.S. armed 
forces who played an invaluable role in helping the citizens of 
Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi respond to the devastation 
of Hurricane Katrina and saved countless lives. The committee 
notes, however, that there are a number of areas where the 
Department of Defense (DOD) could have improved the execution 
of military support during Hurricane Katrina. The committee 
further notes that both the Final Report of the Select 
Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and 
Response to Hurricane Katrina and the White House Report on the 
Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina identify areas where DOD 
response to Hurricane Katrina was lacking, and makes 
recommendations for improvement.
    The committee is pleased that both reports emphasize the 
critical support provided by the respective National Guards of 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana in responding to this 
crisis, as well as the support provided by the National Guard 
Bureau in mobilizing assets from guard units around the nation. 
The committee applauds the national guard's response to 
Hurricane Katrina, and believes that the command and control 
arrangements for national guard units during this multi-state 
emergency worked well and should serve as a model for future 
multi-state responses. In short, the governors of Louisiana and 
Mississippi each commanded the national guard effort in their 
respective states, and commanded the various national guard 
units from across the country who volunteered to serve under 
previously agreed Emergency MutualAssistance Compacts. Thus, 
the committee believes that national guard units, operating under the 
command and control of the governor, should not execute multi-state 
missions, and that regional, multi-state coordination of first response 
efforts remain a Department of Homeland Security mission. The committee 
believes, however, that the national guard will continue to be an 
essential element in any response to a domestic emergency that 
overwhelms first responders.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Homeland Defense to review the findings applicable 
to the Department made in the Final Report of the Select 
Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and 
Response to Hurricane Katrina. The committee also directs the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense to submit 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2007, a report 
detailing how the Department intends to address the issues 
raised by the Select Committee report and the White House 
report. In particular, the report shall clarify U.S. Northern 
Command's role in planning and executing support to the 
Department of Homeland Security and national guard units 
operating under title 32, United States Code, status during 
domestic contingencies.

  Department of Defense Interagency Coordination in the Global War on 
                               Terrorism

    The committee notes the importance of interagency 
coordination in all matters affecting national security, 
particularly in the global war on terrorism (GWOT), where 
success depends on the seamless application of all elements of 
national power. The committee is aware that the National 
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) is in the process of completing 
the National Implementation Plan, which will provide 
integrated, strategic, operational plans for counterterrorism 
activities within and among agencies. While the committee 
expects that the National Implementation Plan will improve 
interagency coordination in the GWOT, the committee believes 
that the NCTC, alone, will not solve problems in interagency 
coordination.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has advocated improved interagency coordination in its National 
Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy and the 2006 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR, in particular, 
identifies a number of DOD initiatives aimed at improving 
interagency coordination.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007, a report on 
how the Department is implementing the 2006 QDR objective of 
strengthening interagency operations. The report shall address 
how the Department is improving and strengthening internal DOD 
mechanisms for GWOT interagency coordination at the strategic, 
operational, and tactical level; and suggest means to address 
any remaining gaps in the interagency planning and execution 
process.

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

    The committee believes that the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) does not adequately 
scrutinize the effects on national security of mergers, 
acquisitions and takeovers by foreign persons, which could 
result in foreign control of persons engaged in interstate 
commerce in the United States. The committee notes that recent 
decisions by CFIUS, such as approving attempts by the China 
National Offshore Oil Corporation to acquire Unocal and Dubai 
Ports World to acquire operation of six U.S. ports, underscores 
that CFIUS is neither applying sufficient analytical rigor to 
its review process nor providing sufficient weight to genuine 
concerns about the adverse impact of such transactions on U.S. 
national security. The committee urges the President to reform 
the process to ensure that CFIUS members do not prioritize 
securing foreign investment in the United States ahead of 
protecting national security.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense is a 
CFIUS member and that the Department will often conduct an 
internal review of transactions as part of a CFIUS review. The 
committee is concerned that the Department may not be 
adequately scrutinizing and taking into consideration all of 
the national security implications of proposed mergers, 
acquisitions or takeovers under CFIUS review or voicing 
strongly its concerns to other CFIUS members.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee Armed Services by April 1, 2007, a report 
explaining how the Department evaluates the national security 
implications of mergers, acquisitions or takeovers that are 
subject to CFIUS review. This report shall also provide 
examples of how the Department raised national security 
concerns within the CFIUS structure over the last five years, 
how CFIUS sought assurances to resolve such concerns and 
explain how the Department monitors and enforces these 
assurances.

             Homeland Security/Defense Management Programs

    The committee notes the efforts of civilian academia to 
provide important educational opportunities in the area of 
Homeland Security/Defense Management, and supports such 
efforts, especially when executed in cooperation with the 
Homeland Security/Defense Education Consortium and other 
Department of Defense educational institutions. The committee 
encourages the Department, as well as other federal agencies 
and civilian institutions, to continue to support these types 
of programs.

Improving International Pandemic Preparedness Through Theater Security 
                          Cooperation Programs

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense was 
successful in providing rapid humanitarian assistance to 
Southeast Asia following the December 2004, tsunami due, in 
part, to military to military agreements, relationships, and 
training established through U.S. Pacific Command's Theater 
Security Cooperation Program. Such pre-existing military 
agreements, relationships, and training could only prove 
beneficial during other disasters, including regional health 
epidemics or a global pandemic. The committee believes that 
during foreign military training and joint exercises with 
international partners, the Department should actively seek to 
improve the capabilities of military allies in the areas of 
surveillance and early warning of infectious disease outbreak 
and pandemic preparedness, particularly in Africa and Southeast 
Asia. The committee encourages the regional combatant 
commanders to review current efforts and make specific 
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense for opportunities 
to expand such efforts in fiscal years 2007 and 2008.

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

    The committee is aware that the federal response to 
Hurricane Katrina was hampered by a lack of situational 
awareness of post-landfall conditions along the Gulf Coast, as 
noted in the final report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to 
Investigate the Preparation for and Response toHurricane 
Katrina. The Department of Defense possesses unparalleled assets for 
intelligence collection that are used worldwide to coordinate and 
support military operations.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to increase the availability of these Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance assets in the event of a 
catastrophic natural or manmade disaster for use in damage 
assessment and the coordination of relief efforts. The 
committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees as to the status 
of this effort by January 31, 2007.

Joint Training and Certification for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological 
                                Defense

    The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) envisioned the 
future force would be organized, trained, equipped, and 
resourced to deal with all aspects of the threat posed by 
weapons of mass destruction; but the QDR provided no insight 
into how the Department of Defense will achieve its nuclear, 
chemical, and biological defense training objective. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 
for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, in 
coordination with the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the 
Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force, to perform a gap analysis 
on nuclear, chemical, and biological (NCB) defense training, to 
review NCB defense doctrine across each of the military 
services, and to make recommendations to the Secretary of 
Defense, the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2007, regarding the 
implementation of joint training, certification, and doctrinal 
alignment for NCB defense for both the active and reserve 
components.

                 National Counter Proliferation Center

    The committee commends the Director of National 
Intelligence for formally establishing the National Counter 
Proliferation Center (NCPC) on November 21, 2005. As a result 
of testimony received during recent Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee hearings, the committee 
believes that it is essential that a body within the U.S. 
Government integrate and coordinate all elements of national 
power to combat weapons of mass destruction. The committee 
notes that the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 
2004 (Public Law 108-458) mandates that the NCPC address seven 
missions and objectives. The committee is concerned that the 
NCPC is not, and has no plans to carry out the following two 
missions and objectives: (1) coordinating counter proliferation 
plans and activities of the various departments and agencies of 
the U.S. Government to prevent and halt the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and 
related materials and technologies and (2) conducting strategic 
operational counter proliferation planning for the U.S. 
Government to prevent and halt the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials 
and technologies.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the NCPC 
to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services, and the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence by February 1, 2007, a report that 
explains why the NCPC has not taken steps to carry out its 
statutorily mandated missions and objectives to coordinate U.S. 
Government counter proliferation plans and activities and 
conduct strategic operational counter proliferation planning 
for the U.S. Government. The report should indicate whether the 
NCPC expects the President to waive any of the missions and 
objectives assigned to the NCPC pursuant to the National 
Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458). 
In the event the NCPC will not carry out any or all of the 
seven of the missions and objectives detailed in the National 
Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, (Public Law 108-458) 
and the President will not execute a national security waiver, 
the report should explain how the President is meeting the 
requirements in section 1022 of the National Security 
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458).

  Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels Carrying Department of 
                             Defense Cargo

    In section 1017 of this act, the committee includes an 
interim provision to address concerns that vessels engaged in 
the coastwise trades, including the domestic offshore trades, 
are undergoing repairs and modifications in shipyards located 
outside the United States. In general, vessels engaged in the 
coastwise trades are limited to those that are U.S. built, U.S. 
crewed, and U.S. owned. Also, a vessel may not be ``rebuilt'' 
in a shipyard that is not located in the United States. Thus, 
no vessels built outside the United States can enter these 
trades. Part of the current discussions, center around the fact 
that the Coast Guard issued section 67.177 of title 46, Code of 
Federal Regulations that provides guidelines on when a vessel 
is deemed ``rebuilt.'' In general, this occurs when relevant 
work, which is defined as work performed on its hull or 
superstructure, constitutes a considerable part of the hull or 
superstructure or when a major component of the hull or 
superstructure, not built in the United States, is added to a 
vessel. With regard to the former test, percentage limitations 
have been established in section 67.117(b) of title 46, Code of 
Federal Regulations. Specifically with respect to vessels the 
hull and superstructure of which is constructed of steel, 
certain thresholds have been established. The issue is that a 
vessel is deemed rebuilt when the relevant work constitutes 
more than ten percent of the vessel's steelweight prior to the 
work. A vessel may be considered ``rebuilt'' if the relevant 
work constitutes more than 7.5 percent but not more than ten 
percent of the vessel's steelweight prior to the work. The 
conflict which seems to exist is the Coast Guard has one test 
for when a vessel is initially considered to be ``built'' in 
the United States for the purposes of engaging in the coastwise 
trades, and another test for when a vessel is deemed 
``rebuilt'' outside the United States, and thus losing its 
right to engage in the coastwise trades.
    The committee is concerned that this apparent dichotomy has 
resulted in a number of vessels being repaired and modified in 
foreign shipyards. To resolve this issue, and to be fair to 
proponents and opponents of the practice of repairing and 
overhauling coastwise eligible vessels in foreign shipyards, 
the committee intends to conduct a hearing or series of 
hearings in the near-term. The committee recognizes this is a 
very complicated issue with significant policy ramifications, 
and thus chose to address this issue through an interim 
legislative provision in this Act. Nevertheless, hearings will 
provide the opportunity for all parties to present their views. 
The committee believes that a more detailed and permanent 
solution is obtainable.

                  Report on Strategic Language Skills

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
placed great emphasis on improving the strategic language 
posture of the United States. Accordingly, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to identify objectives for 
developing capabilities in immediate investment languages and 
stronghold languages, as specified on the fiscal year 2006 
Department of Defense Strategic Languages List, and develop a 
comprehensive implementation plan as to how the Secretary of 
Defense and the military departments will achieve those 
objectives. The committee expects that the plan for achieving 
the objectives for strategic languages will be coordinated with 
and will complement the Secretary's report on the need for a 
personnel plan for linguists in the armed forces required by 
section 581 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit these 
language objectives and implementation plan to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2007.

 Special Operations Command as the Supported Command in the Global War 
                              on Terrorism

    The committee notes that the 2004 Unified Command Plan made 
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) the supported, or 
lead, combatant command in the global war on terrorism (GWOT). 
The committee further notes that annex C of the National 
Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, published 
February 1, 2006, implements USSOCOM's designation as the 
supported combatant command for the GWOT by charging SOCOM with 
planning, synchronizing, and, as directed, executing global 
operations against terrorist networks. The committee finds, 
however, that USSOCOM's roles and responsibilities as the 
supported combatant command for the GWOT remain ambiguous.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2007, a report 
that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the Commander, 
USSOCOM in his capacity as the supported combatant commander in 
the GWOT. The report shall:
          (1) Identify a clear chain of command affording the 
        Commander, USSOCOM the authority to more effectively 
        carry out his role as the lead Commander for GWOT 
        planning and operations;
          (2) Explain under what circumstances will USSOCOM be 
        directed to exercise command and control of 
        counterterrorism operations;
          (3) Verify whether current USSOCOM acquisition, 
        training and manning authorities are sufficient to 
        allow Commander, USSOCOM to meet his responsibilities 
        as the supported combatant commander for GWOT; and
          (4) Clarify the command and control relationship 
        between the geographic combatant commanders and USSOCOM 
        in terms of GWOT planning and operations.

Status and Implementation of Military Support for Stability, Security, 
               Transition, and Reconstruction Operations

    The committee is pleased to note that the Department of 
Defense issued Directive 3000.05, dated November 28, 2005, on 
`` Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and 
Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations.'' Such operations will remain 
common critical military tasks in the foreseeable future and 
the Department should be fully prepared to execute such tasks. 
The committee believes that the Department should integrate, to 
the greatest extent possible, SSTR-related requirements across 
its doctrine, training, logistics, organization, materiel, 
personnel, and facilities (DTLOM-PF).
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the the House 
Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2007, a report on the 
status and plan (including timeline) to implement the Directive 
across DTLOM-PFs. This report shall include, among other 
relevant issues, a special focus on professional 
militaryeducation and training, including but not limited to revisions 
to Academy and War College curricula, if any; training plans at the 
service and joint operational levels; the possible creation of SSTR 
fellowships within the Agency for International Development or related 
organizations (including non-governmental organizations); and any 
reorganizations that will be required to implement the Directive.

                     Terrorist Use of the Internet

    The committee is concerned that terrorist organizations, 
such as al Qaeda, are using the internet to carry out strategic 
and operational objectives. The committee believes that 
terrorist organizations should not be permitted to exploit the 
internet, and that the Department of Defense should take steps 
to combat terrorists' use of the internet.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by May 1, 2007, a report that 
describes how terrorist organizations use the internet, and 
recommend ways the Department can counter terrorists' use of 
the internet. The report shall also state how the Department is 
currently countering terrorist recruiting, training and 
operations that are executed through the internet, and should 
identify any legal challenges the Department may face in trying 
to combat terrorists' use of the internet.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters


                Section 1001--General Transfer Authority

    This section would provide fiscal year 2007 transfer 
authority to the Department of Defense for amounts up to $3.75 
billion.

Section 1002--Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal 
                               Year 2006

    This section would authorize adjustments in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) for the Department of Defense by supplemental 
appropriations pursuant to such authorization.

 Section 1003--Increase in Fiscal Year 2006 General Transfer Authority

    This section would amend section 1001(a)(2) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) to increase the fiscal year 2006 transfer authority from 
$3.5 billion to $3.75 billion.

Section 1004--United States Contribution to NATO Common-Funded Budgets 
                          in Fiscal Year 2007

    This section would authorize the United States contribution 
to North Atlantic Treaty Organization common-funded budgets for 
fiscal year 2007, including the use of unexpended balances.

 Section 1005--Report on Budgeting for Fluctuations in Fuel Cost Rates

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2007, on 
the fuel costs rate projection used in the annual Department of 
Defense budget. This section would also require the Comptroller 
General to review the report and submit an assessment by March 
15, 2007.

Section 1006--Reduction in Authorizations Due to Savings Resulting From 
                     Lower-than-Expected Inflation

    The Department of Defense assumed an inflation rate of 2.2 
percent in its fiscal year 2007 budget submission. However, 
according to the House Budget Committee's report (109-402), the 
Congressional Budget Office's estimate of inflation is 0.4 
percentage points lower than the President's request for fiscal 
year 2007. The savings resulting from the lower-than-expected 
inflation for fiscal year 2007 is $1,583 million less than the 
budget request.

       Subtitle B--Policy Relating to Naval Vessels and Shipyards


 Section 1011--Transfer of Naval Vessels to Foreign Nations Based Upon 
                              Vessel Class

    This section would allow the transfer of a specified number 
of ships to a particular nation without identification of the 
specific vessel by hull number or ship name. Section 7037 of 
title 10, United States Code, requires legislative approval for 
the transfer to other nations of specific vessels exceeding 
3,000 tons or vessels that are less than 20-years-old. The 
legislative approval process typically begins two years or more 
prior to the actual decommissioning of the U.S. Navy vessel and 
ship transfer. Decommissioning plans frequently change as a 
result of changing operational commitments, material condition, 
and other factors. Linking a specific vessel to a specific 
country can result in a lost transfer opportunity if that 
vessel's decommissioning status changes. Additionally, it must 
be replaced by another vessel of the same class as a transfer 
candidate.
    This section would better support the goal of affecting 
``hot'' ship transfers. Hot ship transfers reduce the cost of 
decommissioning preparation and lay-up for the U.S. Navy and 
may support a higher selling price for the ship as an ``excess 
defense article.'' For the purchaser, a hot ship transfer is 
advantageous because it eliminates reactivation costs 
attributed to long post-decommissioning lay-up and because the 
ship transfer can be more quickly and economically realized.
    This section would still require Congress to authorize the 
release of specific naval capabilities and technologies to 
specific countries, but it would provide flexibility to best 
match available decommissioned ships to customer navies' 
requirements. Finally, Congress would still be free to 
designate specific ships to specific countries where 
circumstances dictated.

 Section 1012--Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels in Foreign 
                               Shipyards

    The committee includes a provision that will clarify those 
commonwealths and possessions that are to be considered as part 
of the United States for the purposes of naval vessels to 
include any Military Sealift Command vessels that are owned or 
chartered under thejurisdiction of the Secretary of Navy. This 
section also further defines the term emergency voyage repair and 
extends the limitations on overhaul, repair and maintenance of vessels 
in foreign shipyards.

 Section 1013--Report on Options for Future Lease Arrangement for Guam 
                                Shipyard

    This section would require the Secretary of Navy to submit 
a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by December 15, 2006, on the 
Guam Shipyard located in San Rita, Guam. This section would 
also require the Comptroller General to submit an evaluation of 
the Secretary of Navy's report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 
2007.
    Under the statutory authority of section 2304c(3) of title 
10, United States Code, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
6.302-3(a)(2)(i), the Navy has been awarding non-competitive 
contracts to Guam Shipyard located in San Rita, Guam since 
fiscal year 1998 to maintain the industrial base in support of 
national strategic objectives. In 1998, Commander, U.S. Pacific 
Fleet determined that maintaining a private ship repair 
capability in Guam is a matter of national strategic importance 
for future defense operations in the western Pacific.
    In a report to Congress on Repair of Military Sealift 
Command Ships dated May 2004, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet 
validated the importance of this shipyard. In the fiscal year 
2006 Class Justification and Approval For Other Than Full and 
Open Competition, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet again 
determined that maintaining a private ship repair capability as 
a mobilization base facility on Guam is a matter of vital 
strategic importance for operations in the Western Pacific Area 
of Responsibility. In support of that determination, the 
Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet submitted a letter to the 
Commander, Military Sealift Command on March 30, 2005, that 
stated:

          ``Guam is strategically located with respect to those 
        Asian countries that border the Pacific-Rim and 
        provides an excellent site for logistical support to 
        the Navy's operating forces in that region. With the 
        U.S. Navy's continuing focus on the Pacific Area of 
        Responsibility, the former U.S. Naval Ship Repair 
        Facility Guam, due to its geographically unique 
        location and positive force protection status, is 
        essential to our ability to respond to possible 
        contingencies.''

    Until such time as the Secretary of the Navy prepares the 
requested report, this section would further require the 
awarding of contracts under the authority of section 2304(c)(3) 
of title 10, United States Code and section 6.302-3(a)(2)(i) of 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation in an equal to the average 
amount awarded between Fiscal Year 1998 and Fiscal Year 2006. 
The committee supports the Secretary of Navy's decision to 
continue to designate the Guam Shipyard as critical to 
maintaining the industrial base in support of national 
strategic objectives, as certified by the Commander, U.S. 
Pacific Fleet, for each of the past eight fiscal years.

     Section 1014--Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement Program

    This section would establish a program to provide grants 
and loan guarantees to U.S. shipbuilders to make capital 
investments in their shipbuilding processes and facilities to 
improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality of U.S. 
ship construction and promote the international competitiveness 
of U.S. shipyards. This section would authorize the Secretary 
of the Navy to solicit and approve grant applications from 
shipbuilding companies to research and develop innovative 
technologies, processes and infrastructure to improve the 
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of naval vessel construction. 
This section would also authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
provide loan guarantees to shipyards to purchase and implement 
a technology, a process or an infrastructure improvement that 
he determines will improve the productivity and cost-
effectiveness of naval vessel construction. This section would 
also require the Secretary of the Navy to perform annual 
assessments of the shipbuilding industrial base to determine 
where and to what extent inefficiencies exist and to what 
extent innovative design and production technologies, processes 
and infrastructure can be developed to alleviate such 
inefficiencies. This section would also require that funding 
for the National Shipbuilding Research Program be separately 
identified and set forth in budget justification materials 
submitted to Congress for that fiscal year in support of that 
budget.

Section 1015--Transfer of Operational Control of Certain Patrol Coastal 
                          Ships to Coast Guard

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into an agreement with the Commandant of the Coast Guard 
for the transfer of operational control of not less than five 
179 foot Cyclone class patrol coastal ships for a period 
extending at least through September 30, 2012.

      Section 1016--Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels

    This section would amend section 2401 of title 10, United 
States Code, to prohibit the secretary of a military department 
from entering into a contract for lease or charter of a vessel 
for a term of more than 24 months, including all options to 
renew or extend the contract, if the hull or superstructure of 
that vessel was constructed in a foreign shipyard.

  Section 1017--Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels Carrying 
                      Department of Defense Cargo

    This section would provide that the Secretary of Defense 
may not award any contract for the carriage by vessel of cargo 
for the Department of Defense, unless the contract includes a 
requirement under which the contractor shall ensure that the 
overhaul and repair work is done in a shipyard located in the 
United States or the contractor must report any repair work 
conducted in a shipyard located outside the Unites States.

       Section 1018--Riding Gang Member Documentation Requirement

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
awarding a charter or a contract for carriage of defense cargo 
unless the charter or contract requires that each riding gang 
member that performs any work on the vessel during the 
effective period of the charter or contract holds a merchant 
mariner's document issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. This section 
also allows the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations to 
exempt a riding gang member from the above requirement under 
limited circumstances, and then only if a background check is 
performed.

                  Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities


Section 1021--Restatement in Title 10, United States Code, and Revision 
of Department of Defense Authority to Provide Support for Counter-Drug 
   Activities of Federal, State, Local, and Foreign Law Enforcement 
                                Agencies

    This section would codify section 1004 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-
510), as amended by section 1021(a) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107). 
The current authority, which would expire at the end of fiscal 
year 2006, enables the Department of Defense to assist the 
counter-drug activities of any other department or agency of 
the federal government or of any State, local, or foreign law 
enforcement agencies. This support includes the maintenance and 
repair of equipment; transportation of personnel; establishment 
and operation of bases of operation or training facilities; 
counter-drug related training of law enforcement personnel; the 
detection, monitoring, and communication of air and sea 
traffic; construction of roads, fences and installation 
lighting, establishment of command, control, communications, 
and computer networks; provision of linguist and intelligence 
analysis services; and aerial and ground reconnaissance.

Section 1022--Restatement in Title 10, United States Code, and Revision 
of Department of Defense Authority to Provide Support for Counter-Drug 
               Activities of Certain Foreign Governments

    This section would codify and expand section 1033 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public 
Law 105-85), as amended by section 1021 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136). 
The current authority, which would expire at the end of fiscal 
year 2006, enables the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide 
counter-drug equipment in addition to that provided under 
section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510), as amended by section 
1021(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107), to nations in South America and 
Central Asia, including: Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan.
    Additionally, this section would expand the authority to 
include countries that are located in primary narcotics-
trafficking routes in Central America and Central Asia, 
including: Panama, Guatemala, Belize, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan 
and Kyrgyzstan. During calendar year 2006, incidents against 
Afghan security forces by narcotics traffickers have increased. 
Most of these incidents involved small arms, machine guns, 
rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devises. 
Afghan security forces need to be armed to effectively deal 
with narcotics traffickers. The Government of Afghanistan 
raised the issue of security forces obtaining additional arms 
and ammunition support at the recent United States-Afghanistan 
Strategic Partnership meeting held in Washington, DC in March 
2006. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 
(Public Law 109-13), Congress authorized providing Afghanistan 
crew-served weapons. Pursuant to this authority, the U.S. 
Government has provided the government of Afghanistan with two 
DShKMs heavy machine guns (.50-caliber). This section would 
also establish the authority to provide crew-served weapons of 
.50-caliber or less to Afghanistan for fiscal years 2007 and 
2008. This section would also authorize that during fiscal 
years 2007 and 2008, $20.0 million of additional expenditures 
under this authority should be authorized each fiscal year, for 
a total of $60.0 million each fiscal year.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Secretary of State, to prepare a 
counter-drug plan for the governments to which support will be 
provided under this section. This section would require the 
Department of Defense to submit the annual plans to the 
congressional defense committees and the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Affairs and the House Committee on International 
Relations by December 31st of each year.

 Section 1023--Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counter-Drug 
               and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia

    This section would extend the continuation of authorities 
provided in section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, (Public Law 
108-375) which allow the Department of Defense to support a 
unified campaign in Colombia against narcotics trafficking and 
terrorist organizations for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. This 
section would also extend the limitation on the number of U.S. 
military and federally funded civilian contractor personnel in 
the Republic of Colombia through fiscal year 2008. Section 1021 
limited the number of military personnel in Colombia in fiscal 
years 2005 and 2006 to 800 people and the number of federally 
funded civilian contractors employed to support Plan Colombia 
to 600 people. This section would extend these authorities for 
an additional two years to provide support to the consolidation 
phase of Plan Colombia, the Government of Colombia's long-term 
blueprint to end the country's long-running civil war, reduce 
narcotics trafficking, and promote economic and social 
development.

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

    This section would extend by one year the requirement for 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report detailing the 
expenditure of funds by the Secretary during fiscal year 2006 
in direct and indirect support of the counter-drug activities 
of foreign governments. This requirement was reinstated for 
fiscal year 2005. The committee notes that the Department of 
Defense has increased its level of counternarcotics assistance 
to foreign law enforcement agencies and militaries in recent 
years. The committee believes it should continue to monitor 
such expenditures closely.

     Section 1025--Report on Interagency Counternarcotics Plan for 
            Afghanistan and South and Central Asian Regions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
February 15, 2007, updating the interagency counternarcotics 
implementation plan for Afghanistan and the South and Central 
Asian regions. The committee notes that the Secretary of 
Defense failed to submit a report on this matter, as directed 
by the committee, by December 31, 2005.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


  Section 1031--Revision to Authorities Relating to Commission on the 
    Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the United States

    This section would extend the assessment horizon of the 
Commission of the Implementation of the New Strategic Posture 
of the United States, as established in section 1051 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163), from 2008 to 2025. This horizon pertains 
particularly to the commission's assessment of the ability of 
the current nuclear stockpile to address the evolving strategic 
threat environment and the commission's recommendations on 
changes to nuclear stockpile and infrastructure required to 
preserve a nuclear capability commensurate with that threat 
environment.
    This section would also change the commission's report date 
from June 30, 2007, to 18 months after commencement of 
commission activities and the commission's termination date 
from July 30, 2007, to 60 days after the report submission.

Section 1032--Enhancement to Authority to Pay Rewards for Assistance in 
                          Combating Terrorism

    This section would increase the flexibility and 
responsiveness of the counterterrorism reward program by 
allowing the combatant commanders to delegate approval 
authority for such rewards, which may amount to $50,000 each, 
to the commander of a command directly subordinate to that 
combatant commander. Such delegation of authority to a 
subordinate commander must have the approval of the Secretary 
of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or an Under 
Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary. This section 
would also increase reward authority, which the combatant 
commander may further delegate, from $2,500 to $10,000.

  Section 1033--Report on Assessment Process of Chairman of the Joint 
          Chiefs of Staff Relating to Global War on Terrorism

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007, a report on the 
findings of the semi-annual global war on terrorism (GWOT) 
assessment process described in the Implementation and 
Assessment Annex (annex R) of the National Military Strategic 
Plan for the War on Terrorism (NMSP-WOT).
    The committee is encouraged by the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
effort to develop and publish a ``NMSP-WOT.'' The committee 
believes that this document effectively presents the approach 
the Department of Defense will take in fulfilling its role 
within the national strategy for combating terrorism. The 
committee notes with interest that the NMSP-WOT sets military 
priorities for the GWOT, establishes a set of metrics for 
evaluating progress in the global war on terrorism and 
implements an assessment process.

Section 1034--Presidential Report on Improving Interagency Support for 
         United States 21st Century National Security Missions

    This section would require the President to submit to 
Congress by February 1, 2007, a report that identifies 
interagency capabilities needed to achieve U.S. national 
security goals and objectives in the 21st century, describing 
how best to enhance the integration of those capabilities with 
those of the deployed military, and discussing the criteria and 
considerations used to evaluate progress in building and 
integration such capacity. This section would further 
requirethe President to make recommendations for improving interagency 
coordination in the form of specific legislative proposals.
    Since 2002, the administration has outlined broad U.S. 
national security goals and objectives through several strategy 
documents, including the March 2006 National Security Strategy, 
the November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, the 
February 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and 
the July 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security. The 
Department of Defense (DOD) has complemented these documents 
with its own defense-specific strategies, such as the 2005 
National Defense Strategy and the 2004 National Military 
Strategy. Most recently, the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR) laid out DOD's perspective on ways in which to execute 
these various security and defense strategies. In particular, 
the QDR highlighted the need for improved, robust interagency 
capacity to complement the work done by deployed military 
forces in achieving U.S. national security goals.
    The committee believes it is critical that the President 
provide his view on both the civilian and military capabilities 
required to address 21st century national security challenges 
and the extent to which such federal departments and agencies 
must integrate these capabilities for optimal effectiveness. 
Moreover, the committee seeks the President's view on the 
possible legislative changes that might strengthen U.S. 
national security. Toward this end and recognizing the 
complexity of the current and emerging national security 
challenges, the committee urges the President to incorporate 
the inputs of the broadest practicable group of national 
security players into this report, including representatives of 
domestic departments and agencies that must coordinate in 
planning and response to national and homeland security 
challenges.

  Section 1035--Quarterly Reports on 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review 
                         Report Implementation

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services quarterly reports on the processes 
and procedures to examine the various recommendations of the 
2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), implementation plans and 
strategies for each area highlighted by the QDR report, and 
relevant information about the status of such implementation. 
Because the national security environment of the 21st century 
is evolving rapidly, these reports would also indicate changes 
in the Secretary's assessment of the defense strategies or 
capabilities required since the publication of the 2006 
Quadrennial Defense Review Report. This section would require 
that the Secretary submit the first report by January 31, 2007, 
and would terminate the reporting requiring upon publication of 
the next QDR report or upon notification by the Secretary to 
the armed services committees that implementation is complete, 
whichever comes first.
    The committee recognizes that the latest QDR Report 
describes the complex security challenges facing armed forces 
in the 21st century, clearly indicating that the document 
reflects a ``snapshot in time'' regarding the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) strategy and the capabilities required to 
execute that strategy, and notes that the Department is in the 
process of transformation. The Department devoted significant 
analytical resources to ensure that the QDR process identified 
various scenarios and described the types of capabilities, 
ranging from weapons platforms to cultural and language skills 
to combat support and combat service support elements, that are 
required to prevail in these scenarios and shape the 
international security environment.
    The QDR also reflects the reality that the U.S. Government 
must develop, procure, and employ such capabilities through a 
long-term strategy. The committee understands that the 
Department has developed several working groups to examine 
various areas that may impact future authorities and funding 
requests by the Department.
    For example, the committee notes that in the post-September 
11th world, irregular warfare--or conflicts in which enemy 
combatants are not regular military forces of nation-states--
has emerged as a primary form of warfare confronting the United 
States and that developing irregular warfare capability is 
critical to military success in the global war on terrorism. 
The QDR report stipulates that while sustaining capabilities to 
address conventional combat operations, the Department must 
develop and enhance capabilities to carry out long-duration 
operations, unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, 
counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and stabilization, and 
reconstruction operations. In particular, the QDR report 
identifies irregular warfare as an area that will need 
continuous reassessment and improvement in the coming years and 
requires the development of a ``roadmap'' by a working group to 
address such issues.
    Because implementing the QDR recommendations in irregular 
warfare and other areas will require strong commitment and 
emphasis from not only the Secretary of Defense and leaders 
from other federal departments and agencies but also from 
Congress, it is critical that the Secretary of Defense maintain 
robust, timely information flow to the armed services 
committees, particularly on the work of these QDR-related 
groups.

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

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure that service members, military retirees, disabled 
veterans, and persons assisting disabled veterans are able to 
utilize Department of Defense (DOD) lands that are available 
for hunting and fishing. This section would also require the 
Secretary to report to Congress within 180 days of enactment of 
this Act on actions necessary to increase the availability of 
DOD lands to such persons for hunting and fishing activities.
    Finally, this section would require the Secretary of the 
Interior to cease plans to exterminate deer and elk on Santa 
Rosa Island, California by helicopter and would prohibit the 
Secretary from exterminating or nearly exterminating the deer 
and elk on the island. Under current plans, all deer and elk 
will be eliminated from the island by 2012.

            Section 1037--Technical and Clerical Amendments

    This section would make a number of technical and clerical 
amendments to existing law of a non-substantive nature.

       Section 1038--Database of Emergency Response Capabilities

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure that the Department of Defense maintains a database of 
emergency response capabilities for domestic disasters. The 
committee believes that a single entity in the Department 
should be responsible for tracking the full range of military 
disaster response capabilities that exist domestically. The 
committee acknowledges U.S. Northern Command's role in domestic 
disaster preparedness and response, and recommends that it be 
involved in this effort.

   Section 1039--Information on Certain Criminal Investigations and 
                              Prosecutions

    This section would expand the annual reporting requirement 
in section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) to 
include a detailed and comprehensive description of any 
investigation or prosecution, and any resulting judicial or 
non-judicial punishment or other disciplinary action, for any 
violation of international obligations or laws of the United 
States regarding the treatment of individuals detained by the 
U.S. armed forces or by a person providing services to the 
Department of Defense on a contractual basis, if such 
information would not compromise any ongoing criminal or 
administrative investigation or prosecution.
    This section would also include additional information on 
investigations and prosecutions for any officer nominated for 
command, or nominated for promotion or appointment to a 
position requiring the advice and consent of the Senate, which 
should be clearly designated as such. The information in 
connection with nominations shall be submitted to the House 
Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services on a regular, timely basis in advance of any 
nomination.

         Section 1040--Date for Final Report of EMP Commission

    This section would direct the Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) 
Attack Commission, established by title 14 of the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Public Law 106-398), and reestablished by section 1042 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163) to move its final report date from June 30, 2007, 
to 18 months after commencement of commission activities.

                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST


   Performance Periods Established in Connection with Public-private 
                              Competitions

    The committee notes that civilian in-house workforces and 
contractor workforces who win A-76 competitions are treated 
differently with respect to recompetitions at the end of their 
performance periods. The committee also notes that OMB Circular 
A-76 (revised May 29, 2003), while technically allowing an in-
house workforce to receive an extension to the performance 
period, in effect, rarely results in an extension. The 
committee further notes that in contrast, the regulations in 
the Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding contractor 
performance periods appear to result in frequent extensions to 
contractor performance periods. The committee believes that 
this apparent disparity may prejudice civilian in-house 
employees.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, to 
examine this apparent inequity and report to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 2007. The report its findings 
shall include an analysis and comparison of recompetitions 
conducted since January 1, 2001 through the date of the 
enactment of this Act to determine the frequency of in-house 
extensions and contractor extensions. Thereport shall also 
examine the existing regulations governing recompetitions to identify 
areas of possible disparity between in-house and contractor workforces. 
The committee further directs the Secretary to provide recommendations 
regarding any inequities between the in-house and contractor workforces 
disclosed in this examination.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


  Section 1101--Increase in Authorized Number of Defense Intelligence 
                   Senior Executive Service Employees

    This section would increase the authorization for the 
number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service 
employees by 50 in fiscal year 2007.

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

    This section would amend section 2636a(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to authorize full replacement value 
coverage for household goods of civilian employees of the 
Department of Defense damaged or lost during transportation at 
government expense. Currently, only members of the armed forces 
may receive full replacement coverage. This section would 
resolve an area of disparate treatment for civilian employees 
compared to military personnel.

  Section 1103--Accrual of Annual Leave for Members of the Uniformed 
                  Services Performing Dual Employment

    This section would amend section 5534a of title 5, United 
States Code, to provide that servicemembers hired by the U.S. 
Government for a civilian position while on terminal leave from 
the military would accrue annual leave in the manner specified 
in section 6303(a) of title 5, United States Code. Currently, a 
servicemember on terminal leave hired for a federal civilian 
position receives civil service leave and military leave at the 
same time. This section would limit leave accrual of such 
individuals to that of a military retiree.

     Section 1104--Death Gratuity Authorized for Federal Employees

    This section would add a new section in chapter 81 of title 
10, United States Code, to provide a death gratuity of $0.1 
million to civilian employees of the U.S. Government in the 
case of a death resulting from wounds, injuries, or illnesses 
that are incurred in the performance of duty in a contingency 
operation. The gratuity would be payable retroactively for 
deaths after October 7, 2001, in the theater of operations of 
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During 
this period of time eight civilian employees of the Department 
of Defense have lost their lives as a direct result of their 
assignments to Afghanistan and Iraq. This section would provide 
covered civilians with a death gratuity similar to the $.1 
million authorized for service members under section 664 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163).

             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


      Addressing the Threat Posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran

    The committee notes that the Islamic Republic of Iran 
currently poses a serious threat to the security of the United 
States, as well as to the peace and stability of the 
international community by continuing dangerous nuclear 
activities, including development of uranium enrichment 
capabilities; violating the human rights of the Iranian people; 
supporting terrorists; calling for the destruction of the State 
of Israel; creating instability in Iraq; and undermining the 
spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
    Given these circumstances, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, by 
January 31, 2007, a classified report encompassing the present 
period through 2016, which describes the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) strategy for addressing current and foreseeable 
Iranian threats to U.S. security and international security. 
The report shall describe the range of U.S. military options, 
including possible scenarios in which the use of U.S. military 
force may be appropriate and any limits or obstacles to using 
such force. The report shall also specifically address Iran's 
nuclear activities; support for terrorists; influence in the 
Middle East region, particularly Iraq; and any broader 
destabilizing ambitions of the Iranian regime.
    To supplement this report, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide regular, timely briefings to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services which include detailed political-military 
assessments of existing and emerging threats posed by Iran to 
the security of the United States and the peace and stability 
of the international community, and DOD plans to address such 
threats. The briefings shall include, as appropriate, 
coordination of the Department with the Department of State or 
other relevant government agencies; alternative intelligence 
analyses from these agencies; the status of negotiations with 
Iran regarding its nuclear activities and involvement in Iraq; 
and the impact of Iran's nuclear activities, support for 
terrorists, and influence in Iraq and the Middle East, on the 
security of the United States and the peace and stability of 
the international community.
    Finally, in the event the U.S. participates in direct talks 
with Iran on the subject of Iraq, the committee urges the 
appropriate U.S. officials to address in any such talks the 
need for Iran to stop the flow of any Iranian-supplied 
explosives to Iraq, withdraw any presence of the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iraq, and end Iranian financial 
support to insurgent groups in Iraq.

         International Military Education and Training Programs

    The committee notes that it has received testimony before 
the full committee from the commander of the U.S. Southern 
Command on March 16, 2006 on the value of the U.S. Government's 
International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs 
and the unintended consequences of IMET restrictions under the 
American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) (title 
II of Public Law 107-206). The committee also notes that it had 
previously received testimony before the full committee of the 
value of IMET programs by the commanders of U.S. Southern and 
European Command on March 9, 2005 and by the commander of the 
U.S. Central Command on March 2, 2005.
    Specifically, the committee perceives that IMET programs 
create opportunities for military-to-military engagement 
between U.S. armed forces and the militaries of developing 
nations. Such interactions are critical to advancing the 
understanding of, and respect for, civil-military relations; 
enhancing the understanding of U.S. military principles and 
values; bridging cultural differences; and developing important 
long-term relationships with future military and civilian 
leaders. Generally, such engagement has positively affected 
U.S. armed forces' global access and influence and has proved 
helpful in the global war on terrorism.
    The committee notes that ASPA-related restrictions on IMET 
programs have reduced U.S. engagements with countries in ways 
that create opportunities for third-party governments and 
actors, which may not share the democratic principles and 
values of the United States, to exert undue influence in 
countries subject to IMET restrictions in ways that undermine 
the U.S. national security and broader interests.
    The committee notes that ASPA provides the President with 
the authority to waive IMET restrictions, but the President has 
not yet chosen to exercise this authority. The committee urges 
the President to use, where appropriate, the waiver authority 
granted to him under ASPA to impede undue influence on U.S. 
partner nations and improve U.S. strategic relationships. 
Additionally, the committee requests that the President provide 
the committee with legislative proposals for the strengthening 
of key military-to-military relationships without undermining 
the importance of article 98 agreements under ASPA.
    The committee emphasizes that it supports all aspects of 
ASPA that do not involve IMET restrictions, including the 
restrictions on foreign military financing. The committee 
supports article 98 agreements, which protect U.S. citizens 
against prosecution under the International Criminal Court. The 
committee does not believe that selectively waiving IMET 
restrictions under ASPA will undermine the effectiveness of 
ASPA or diplomatic efforts to secure article 98 agreements and 
does not intend such result.

 Report on Certain Cooperative Activities Involving the United States 
                               and India

    The committee emphasizes its support for a robust U.S.-
India strategic partnership and commends India for its recent 
efforts to bring its national export controls for dual-use and 
other sensitive materials and technologies in line with 
international standards.
    Given the President's proposed deepening of U.S.-India 
nuclear cooperation and its possible effect on safeguards that 
prevent theft or other illicit transfer of nuclear materials 
and technologies, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy 
to submit, by February 1, 2007, a report to the Committees on 
Armed Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
Committees on Armed Services and International Relations of the 
House of Representatives on the Department's current and 
planned cooperative activities to enhance India's export 
control system and nuclear safeguards and to prevent such theft 
or transfer. The report should also describe how the Department 
of Energy coordinates these activities with similar efforts of 
the Departments of Defense and State; provide an assessment of 
the limits and vulnerabilities in India's current export 
control system and other safeguards as they relate to nuclear 
materials; and identify possible areas for expanded U.S.-India 
export control- or nuclear-related cooperative activities.
    The Secretary of Energy should coordinate this report with 
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. To the 
maximum extent possible, the report shall be unclassified, with 
a classified annex if necessary.

Report on Department of Defense Activities in Support of Multinational 
                    Peacekeeping Operations in Sudan

    Noting with concern the ongoing crisis in the Darfur region 
of Sudan, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House 
Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations, and the House Committee on International Relations 
by April 1, 2007, a report describing any current or planned 
Department of Defense activities, including those activities 
involving U.S. military forces, in support of peacekeeping 
missions of United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization forces in Sudan.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training


   Section 1201--Logistic Support for Allied Forces Participating in 
                          Combined Operations

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to use up to $100.0 
million of funds available to the Department of Defense for 
operation and maintenance in any given fiscal year to provide 
logistics support, supplies, and services to foreign military 
forces. To receive such support, the foreign military forces 
must be participating in an operation, such as active 
hostilities, a contingency, or a non-combat operation, with 
U.S. armed forces. Also, the Secretary of Defense must 
determine that the support is essential to the success of the 
combined operation and that without such support, the foreign 
military forces would be unable to participate in the combined 
operation. Finally, the support provided must be allowable 
under existing export control laws and regulations.

    Section 1202--Temporary Authority To Use Acquisition and Cross-
  Servicing Agreements To Lend Certain Military Equipment to Foreign 
      Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for Personnel Protection and 
                             Survivability

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with 
the authority to lend certain military equipment, using 
acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, to the military 
forces of nations participating in combined operations with the 
U.S. armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. This section would 
limit this authority to fiscal years 2007 and 2008, limit such 
equipment to those items marked as ``significant military 
equipment'' in categories I, II, III, and VII on the U.S. 
Munitions List, allow the provision of such equipment for up to 
one year and only if the U.S. forces participating in that 
combined operation have no unfilled requirements for that 
equipment, and require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services detailed reports on the exercise of such 
authority.

Section 1203--Recodification and Revision to Law Relating to Department 
              of Defense Humanitarian Demining Assistance

    This section would recodify in a section of title 10, 
United States Code, the provisions relating to the humanitarian 
mine action (HMA) program. This section would amend the 
authorities for HMA missions so secretaries of the military 
departments may base their decisions on whether the mission 
offers training value to participating U.S. military units or 
promotes the strategic interests of the United States. The 
committee notes that restrictions on actual physical detection, 
lifting, or destruction of landmines by U.S. military personnel 
do not change and there is no restriction on servicemembers 
visiting the physical site of demining activities.

  Section 1204--Enhancements to Regional Defense Combating Terrorism 
                           Fellowship Program

    This section would amend section 2249c of title 10, United 
States Code, to describe the nature of the Counterterrorism 
Fellowship Program (CTFP) more clearly by changing the program 
title to the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program and further 
explaining the authorities associated with the program, to 
allow the Department of Defense to manage the program more 
effectively and efficiently, and to increase the total amount 
of funds that may be used under this authority in any fiscal 
year from $20.0 million to $25.0 million.
    The committee notes that the CTFP successfully engages 
potential partners in the global war on terrorism by educating 
and training foreign military officers, ministry of defense 
officials, and security officials with combating terrorism 
responsibilities. The committee is aware that before accepting 
CTFP candidates into the program the Department requires that 
each candidate enters a thorough human rights verification 
background vetting process. The committee expects that this 
policy will remain unchanged. Additionally, where it is not 
already part of the CTFP, the committee encourages the 
Department to develop and include curricula that promote human 
rights values and respect for democratic principles.

    Section 1205--CAPSTONE Overseas Field Studies Trips to People's 
           Republic of China and Republic of China on Taiwan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct field studies trips to the People's Republic of China 
and the Republic of China on Taiwan during the overseas section 
of the CAPSTONE course for newly-selected flag and general 
officers. Overseas CAPSTONE trips provide a unique opportunity 
for the next generation of senior military leadership to 
familiarize themselves with areas of strategic importance. 
Therefore, this section would require that the Secretary 
provide one trip per year to China and one trip per year to 
Taiwan.

 Section 1206--Military Educational Exchanges Between Senior Officers 
             and Officials of the United States and Taiwan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish and conduct exchanges of senior defense officials and 
officers with the Republic of China on Taiwan at the level of 
Deputy Assistant Secretary and flag-rank officers or above. The 
committee notes that the United States currently conducts 
reciprocal visits with senior defense officials and military 
officers from the People's Republic of China. The committee 
believes that similar programs with Taiwan are appropriate. 
More importantly, the committee believes that maintaining a 
balance of power across the Taiwan Strait is critical to 
ensuring deterrence and preserving peace, security, and 
stability in Asia. China's National People's Congress adopted 
an anti-secession law that essentially authorizes China's 
Central Military Commission to use non-peaceful means against 
Taiwan if the latter declares independence. The committee is 
concerned that this law, in conjunction with an excessive 
military build-up by China, may signal a weakening of 
deterrenceacross the Taiwan Strait. The committee believes that 
the exchange program, by helping to strengthen Taiwan's defenses, would 
help preserve and strengthen deterrence, thereby encouraging China and 
Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully.

     Subtitle B--Nonproliferation Matters and Countries of Concern


    Sec 1211--Procurement Restrictions Against Foreign Persons That 
Transfer Certain Defense Articles and Services to the People's Republic 
                                of China

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
purchasing goods or services from any entity that knowingly 
transfers an item that is on the United States Munitions List 
to the People's Republic of China. The committee notes that 
China's military modernization has proceeded apace with roughly 
double-digit increases in its defense budget almost every year 
for the last decade and a half. The committee is concerned that 
China's military modernization now exceeds its legitimate 
security needs, is undermining the balance of power that has 
maintained peace and security in the Western Pacific for 
decades, may be undermining deterrence in the region, and may 
be contributing to the increasingly bellicose nature of Chinese 
foreign policy. This section would create disincentives for 
potential arms exports to China by denying sellers access to 
Department of Defense procurement opportunities and would 
provide incentives for foreign persons to choose not to export 
arms to China in order to maintain their ability to sell goods 
and services to the Department of Defense.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Section 1221--Execution of the President's Policy to Make Available to 
                   Taiwan Diesel Electric Submarines

    This section would establish that it is the policy of the 
United States to make available to Taiwan plans and options for 
design work and construction work on future diesel electric 
submarines under the U.S. foreign military sales process. The 
availability of such work would be consistent with U.S. 
national disclosure policy and subject to U.S. export control 
laws.
    The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 
30 days after enactment of this Act, a report on the Department 
of the Navy's efforts to execute the President's policy to sell 
diesel electric submarines to Taiwan, including ongoing and 
planned activities to make Taiwanese officials aware of foreign 
military sales options.

  TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER 
                              SOVIET UNION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for Cooperative Threat Reduction 
contained $372.1 million for fiscal year 2007, representing a 
decrease of $43.4 million from the amount authorized for fiscal 
year 2006, exclusive of any supplemental funds authorized for 
fiscal year 2006. This request included increases for strategic 
offensive arms elimination, nuclear weapons storage security, 
and nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia, as well 
as biological threat reduction efforts in states of the former 
Soviet Union. The request also included a decrease for weapons 
of mass destruction proliferation prevention in the states of 
the former Soviet Union and a $65.8 million decrease for 
chemical weapons destruction in Russia, reflecting the upcoming 
completion of the construction of a chemical weapons 
destruction facility.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 
                               and Funds

    This section would define the programs and funds that are 
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds as those 
authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act and 
specify that Cooperative Threat Reduction funds shall remain 
available for obligation for three fiscal years.

                   Section 1302--Funding Allocations

    This section would authorize $372.1 million for the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program. This section would 
authorize specific amounts for each Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program element and would require notification to 
Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and 
expends fiscal year 2007 funds for purposes other than those 
specifically authorized. This section would also provide 
limited authority to obligate amounts for a Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program element in excess of the amount specifically 
authorized for that purpose.

 Section 1303--Temporary Authority to Waive Limitation on Funding for 
            Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia

    This section would extend, until the completion of the 
facility, the President's authority to waive restrictions 
established in section 1305 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) for 
continuing the construction of a chemical weapons destruction 
facility at Shchuch'ye, Russia. The President's current 
authority expires at the end of calendar year 2006. This 
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit 
to Congress a notification that specifies the date of 
completion of the facility, not later than 30 days after 
completion.

            Section 1304--National Academy of Sciences Study

    This section would authorize a study by the National 
Academy of Sciences to analyze lessons learned, past and 
present challenges, and possible options in effectively 
managing and facilitating threat reduction and nonproliferation 
projects under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit, by December 31, 2007, a report on this study to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services. The report would review and evaluate project 
management, interagency interaction, public outreach and 
community involvement, cooperation of Russia and other states 
of the former Soviet Union, legal frameworks, transparency, 
adequacy of funding from the United States and any Cooperative 
Threat Reduction program partner, and interaction with threat 
reduction and nonproliferation projects of Global Partnership 
countries.

            TITLE XIV--HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


        Sections 1401-1403--Homeland Defense Technology Transfer

    These sections would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to 
improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) 
processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology 
to federal, State, and local first responders. The consortium 
would assist the Secretary in fulfilling the Department's 
technology transfer responsibilities required by section 1401 
of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314).

  TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI 
                 FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee recommends authorization of $50.0 billion in 
funds to be appropriated available upon enactment of this Act 
to support the defense activities principally associated with 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Operation Enduring Freedom.

                    SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

    The following table summarizes authorizations included in 
the bill for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                           Budget Realignment

    The committee recommends a realignment of $1.5 billion from 
the budget request for programs and projects relating to the 
global war on terrorism. As a result, this would ensure that 
funding relating to the global war on terrorism is accurately 
consolidated as well as facilitate proper execution of the 
funds during fiscal year 2007.

                              Procurement

    For procurement, the committee recommends including 
continued support of the force protection needs of units 
deployed and engaged in the global war on terrorism. Included 
in the force protection recommendation is funding for up-
armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, tactical 
wheeled vehicle recapitalization and modernization programs for 
the most heavily used vehicles in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom, night vision devices and improvised 
explosive device jammers. In addition, the committee recognizes 
the need to replenish critical small-arms and ammunition 
procurement programs, including funding for the M16 rifle, M240 
medium machine gun, and M4 carbine modifications, and .50 
caliber cartridges, 120mm tank ammunition canister, and 155mm 
high explosive projectiles.

Improvised electronic devices countermeasures

    The budget request contained no funds for procurement of 
electronic jamming devices for defeating the radio-initiated 
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used against U.S. and 
Coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation 
Enduring Freedom (OEF).
    The committee continues to strongly support force 
protection efforts to defeat radio-initiated IEDs. The 
committee notes these devices continue to be the primary cause 
of casualties among U.S. armed forces in OIF and OEF. The 
committee believes there are weaknesses in the capability 
provided by current electronic IED jamming devices.
    The committee is aware of recent tests of a new, man-
portable jammer that is based on proven technology and exhibits 
high success against the evolving radio-controlled IED threat. 
The committee is also aware of recent tests of a third 
generation vehicle-mounted jammer that also exhibits high 
success against this same threat. The committee strongly 
believes that the Department of Defense should procure 
electronic countermeasures that are based on a proven 
technology and that can rapidly enter into production.
    The committee notes that Section 811 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375) established a rapid acquisition authority for the 
Secretary of Defense to use in combat emergencies and further 
notes this authority was used to acquire IED jammers for 
dismounted military personnel in OIF. The committee also 
assisted with expediting the production of these man-portable 
jammers for deployment to OIF.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $69.0 
million in Title XV to procure and deploy 10,000 of the 
successfully tested man-portable jammers referenced in this 
report. In addition, the committee also recommends an 
additional $40.7 million in Title XV to procure and deploy 460 
of the successfully tested vehicle-born jamming devices also 
referenced in this report. Further, the committee encourages 
the Secretary to continue to use the rapid acquisition 
authority to expedite procurement and deployment of these 
critical IED countermeasures.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system utilization

    The committee is deeply concerned that U.S. Central Command 
(USCENTCOM) is underutilizing the capabilities of the joint 
surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) by assigning 
it a number one mission priority of serving as a communications 
relay platform for military road convoys.
    The committee understands that the Air Force defines the 
mission of the JSTARS as a joint platform designed to enhance 
battle management by providing air and land component 
commanders with near real-time, wide-area surveillance and 
targeting information on moving and stationary ground targets, 
slow moving rotary and fixed wing aircraft, rotating antennas, 
and theater missile defense targets of interest. The committee 
ascertained during recent congressional delegation oversight 
visits to Iraq that the JSTARS platform is not optimally 
employed as a communications relay platform. Consequently, the 
committee believes this adversely impacts the ability of the 
combined forces air component commander to wholly support Army 
and Marine Corps ground component commanders' requests for 
ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capability using the 
JSTARS platform. The committee understands the vital importance 
of having effective communications between military road 
convoys with limited radio line-of-sight capability, and 
command and control facilities. However, the committee strongly 
believes that other aircraft platforms are properly equipped to 
perform this communication relay mission, and that routinely 
assigning a high demand/low density platform for a task well 
outside of its principally designed purpose does not optimize 
the utilization of JSTARS.
    Further, the committee recognizes that the JSTARS platform 
can make significant contributions to the mission effectiveness 
of ground component commanders. However, the committee is 
troubled that no formal process exists to analyze or assess 
JSTARS post-mission intelligence data. Conversely, the 
committee notes that post-mission intelligence data gathered by 
similar, high-value reconnaissance platforms such as the U-2, 
RC-135 and EP-3 is analyzed through a formal process, 
contributing significantly to mission effectiveness and combat 
capability.
    Lastly, the committee is aware that a JSTARS mission-crew 
shortfall exists at the unit level and significantly limits the 
JSTARS ability to perform at surge-rate operational tempos for 
extended periods of time. The committee is troubled by the 
inability of the Air National Guard and the active Air Force to 
fill 24 authorized combat coded crews for this high demand/low 
density asset causing a significant capability gap in providing 
additional GMTI capability to the combatant commander. The 
committee recognizes that without fully manning 24 combat coded 
mission crews, JSTARS is unable to provide the necessary 
increase of JSTARS capability to USCENTCOM.
    Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Commander, 
USCENTCOM, to reassess the prioritization of missions assigned 
to the JSTARS platform, and directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to implement formal procedures to analyze JSTARS post-
mission intelligence data to more effectively support the 
warfighter at all levels. Additionally, the committee 
authorizes the Air National Guard an increase of 85 active 
guard and reserve (AGR) positions in title IV of this Act, and 
authorizes $6.7 million for military personnel and $0.4 million 
for operation and maintenance in title XV of this Act to 
support the AGR personnel increase. Finally, the committee 
strongly encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to program 
the required funding in the Air Force Future Years Defense 
Program to convert the remaining 107 part-time positions to 
active guard and reserve positions.

Manned tactical persistent surveillance aircraft

    The budget request contained no funds for procurement of 
inexpensive manned, aerial, persistent surveillance platforms 
for use in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring 
Freedom (OEF).
    The committee recognizes there is a critical tactical 
mission requirement in OIF and OEF for additional manned, 
aerial, persistent surveillance platforms to combat asymmetric 
threats such as improvised explosives devices (IED). The 
committee understands IEDs continue to be the primary cause of 
casualties for U.S. armed forces in OIF and OEF. The committee 
is aware that current surveillance platforms deployed in OIF 
and OEF are used almost exclusively for intelligence gathering 
missions rather than direct support of tactical operations such 
as interdiction of IED emplacement and convoy security.
    The committee strongly encourages that manned, aerial, 
persistent surveillance platforms be rapidly procured for use 
by ground commanders in OIF and OEF. The committee believes 
that if these platforms are employed in tactical operations, 
such as conducting persistent road surveillance missions, then 
these platforms could prevent the emplacement of IEDs and 
counter other threats faced by U.S. armed forces on the roads 
in Iraq. The committee expects these platforms to be configured 
and staffed so that they can be rapidly deployed and easily 
maintained without placing additional, unnecessary logistic 
burdens on U.S. armed forces. The committee also expects these 
platforms to be equipped for day and night surveillance and for 
simple, direct communication with ground- and air-based quick 
reaction forces.
    The committee expects the United States Central Command 
(CENTCOM) to take responsibility for assigning these additional 
tactical surveillance assets to U.S. military units based on 
regional threat levels within CENTCOM's area of responsibility. 
Since these platforms would be considered tactical assets, the 
committee expects that they would be controlled at the brigade 
and lower levels.
    The committee recommends $100.0 million in Title XV for the 
rapid procurement of no less than ten manned, aerial, 
persistent surveillance platforms for tactical operations in 
OIF and OEF.

                       Operation and Maintenance

    The military departments and defense agencies need 
operation and maintenance funds to pay for food, fuel, spare 
parts, maintenance, transportation, camp, post, and base 
expenses associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Without additional funding at 
the start of fiscal year 2007, the military departments will be 
forced to use third quarter and fourth quarter funds in the 
initial months of fiscal year 2007 to pay for OIF and OEF 
costs. The committee recommends including costs associated with 
stateside installations for increased mobilizations and 
demobilizations due to OIF and OEF.

                           Military Personnel

    Over the past four years, the committee has recommended 
increases in the active component manpower to sustain the full 
range of capabilities required of the mission assigned to the 
armed forces. The committee recommends funding a cumulative 
active component increase of 30,400 for the Army and 5,000 for 
the Marine Corps over and above the budget request. The 
committee also recommends including the costs associated with 
Operation Noble Eagle, as well as recruitment and retention 
initiatives.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


U-2 aircraft sensor development

    The budget request contained no funding in PE 35202F for 
the U-2 aircraft sensor development.
    The committee is surprised by the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) decision to accelerate the retirement of the U-2 
aircraft. The committee notes that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR) highlights the DOD's needs for expanded 
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) 
capabilities, some of which are currently provided by the U-2 
aircraft and its sensor suite. The committee is concerned with 
the retirement of an ISR asset such as the U-2 before 
replacement ISR assets are brought on-line. The committee 
understands that the U.S. Strategic Command and the Department 
of the Air Force are currently reviewing ISR needs and whether 
continued U-2 service is required to meet the needs of the 
combatant commanders.
    The committee disagrees with the decision to retire the U-2 
aircraft and includes a section in title I of this Act 
preventing retirement of the U-2 in fiscal year 2007 and 
allowing retirement in future years only upon certification to 
Congress that the U-2 ISR capability is no longer required as 
an intelligence asset to mitigate any ISR gaps identified in 
the 2006 QDR.
    The committee recommends an additional $7.0 million in PE 
35202F for U-2 aircraft sensor development.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                         Section 1501--Purpose

    This section would establish this title and make emergency 
authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of 
this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts 
otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional 
costs due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom.

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


                     Section 1502--Army Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $3,773.8 million 
for Army procurement.

            Section 1503--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $955.4 million 
for Navy and Marine Corps procurement.

                  Section 1504--Air Force Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $296.9 million 
for Air Force procurement.

           Section 1505--Defense--Wide Activities Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $140.2 million 
for Defense-Wide Activities procurement.

        Section 1506--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

    This section would authorize an additional $37.5 million 
for Defense-Wide Activities research, development, test and 
evaluation.

                Section 1507--Operation and Maintenance

    This section would authorize an additional $31,983.3 
million for operations and maintenance programs.

                  Section 1508--Defense Health Program

    This section would authorize an additional $950.2 million 
to the Defense Health Program for operations and maintenance.

                   Section 1509--Classified Programs

    This section would authorize an additional $2,500.0 billion 
to the Department of Defense for classified programs.

                    Section 1510--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize an additional $9,362.8 million 
for military personnel.

          Section 1511--Treatment as Additional Authorizations

    This section would authorize an additional $50.0 billion 
for emergency contingency operations related to Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

                    Section 1512--Transfer Authority

    This section would provide transfer authority of $3.0 
billion to the Department of Defense for the authorizations 
contained in this title.

                  Section 1513--Availability of Funds

    This section would require the funds provided in this title 
to be made available for obligation by the end of the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2007.

            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

                                PURPOSE

    Division B provides military construction, family housing, 
and related authorities in support of the military departments 
during fiscal year 2007. As recommended by the committee, 
Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$16,689,423,000 for construction in support of the active 
forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for 
fiscal year 2007.

           MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

    The Department of Defense (DOD) requested $6,796,940,000 
for military construction, $5,817,443,000 for base realignment 
and closure (BRAC) activities, and $4,084,040,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends 
authorization of $7,085,898,000 for military construction, 
$5,817,443,000 for BRAC activities, and $4,055,553,000 for 
family housing in fiscal year 2007. In addition, the committee 
anticipates rescissions of $260,471,000. Taking these 
rescissions into account, the committee's recommendations are 
consistent with a total budget authority level of 
$16,689,423,000 for military construction, BRAC, and family 
housing in fiscal year 2007.
    The Department's fiscal year 2007 request for military 
construction, family housing, and BRAC activities was, once 
again, a disappointing one. While the total request appears to 
be a significant increase over the fiscal year 2006 level, in 
reality, nearly the entire increase is the result of budget 
increases required for BRAC and chemical weapons 
demilitarization. After removing BRAC funds from the request, 
the non-BRAC request is approximately the same as the amount 
contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).
    The committee continues to believe that DOD budget requests 
for military construction and family housing are inadequate to 
support military readiness and quality of life requirements. 
For this reason, the committee has once again reallocated funds 
within the requested funding levels to provide for additional 
military construction projects that are necessary for military 
training, operations, or to improve living or working 
conditions for military personnel.
    A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in 
Division B for fiscal year 2007 follows:


                        Section 2001-Short Title

    This section would cite division B of this Act as the 
``Joel Hefley Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007.

                            TITLE XXI--ARMY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $2,059,762,000 for Army 
military construction and $1,271,820,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends authorization of 
$2,135,598,000 for military construction and $1,253,448,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2007.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee has recommended reduction or elimination of 
funding for several projects contained within the budget 
request for Army military construction and family housing. 
These reductions include:
          (1) $1,644,000 from the funding amount requested for 
        a barracks complex at Fort Richardson, Alaska. This 
        project, as requested, includes funds for demolition of 
        facilities at installations other than Fort Richardson. 
        While the committee appreciates the Department of 
        Defense's efforts to offset construction with 
        demolition during recapitalization, the committee 
        believes that demolition should not be included within 
        a military construction project request unless it is 
        necessary to support construction of that project.
          (2) $31,000,000 for the purchase of temporary 
        administrative buildings at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The 
        Department of the Army leased these facilities in 
        January 2003 for up to five years in order to house 
        Army Materiel Command (AMC). However, AMC will soon be 
        moved to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama as a result of 2005 
        Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions. While 
        the Department has asserted that Fort Belvoir currently 
        has a deficit of administrative space, the committee is 
        not convinced that expending $31,000,000 to purchase 
        temporary facilities which have only 20 years remaining 
        in their anticipated lifespan is an effective use of 
        funds. If the Department has a validated requirement 
        for additional administrative space that is not related 
        to BRAC 2005 moves, the committee urges the Secretary 
        of the Army to request in future budgets funding for 
        construction of permanent facilities.
          (3) $27,000,000 for construction of a museum support 
        center at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The committee notes 
        that the National Museum of the Marine Corps (NMMC) is 
        scheduled to open in Quantico, Virginia in the fall of 
        2006. According to the Navy's Future Years Defense 
        Program, the NMMC will also require museum support 
        facilities. Given the close proximity of Fort Belvoir 
        to Quantico, the committee believes that a joint 
        facility to support both the NMMC and the National 
        Museum of the United States Army could yield 
        significant efficiencies over separate facilities, 
        while enhancing efforts to preserve, conserve, and 
        restore historic artifacts. As such, the committee 
        urges the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of 
        the Army to consider joint construction of a single 
        museum support facility in a future year.

                        Future Year Programming

    The committee is concerned that changes to military 
construction budget projections resulted in the removal of 
several important projects from the Army's Future Years Defense 
Program (FYDP), including a special operations free fall 
simulator at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona and a community 
dining facility at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. The committee 
believes that these projects are critical to enhancing 
training, reducing costs, and improving quality of life. As 
such, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
include the free fall simulator and the community dining 
facility in the next FYDP.

                          Planning and Design

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete 
planning and design activities for the following projects:
          (1) $365,000--Special Operations Free Fall Simulator, 
        Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona
          (2) $243,000--Community Dining Facility, Dugway 
        Proving Grounds, Utah
          (3) $1,260,000--Sensitive Compartmented Information 
        Facility, National Ground Intelligence Center, Virginia

                        Safety-Critical Projects

    The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to 
ensure that construction projects that are necessary to 
eliminate safety hazards to personnel receive priority funding 
in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). As such, the 
committee urges the Secretary of the Army to accelerate 
projects, such as the programmed effort to address safety 
hazards at the Advanced Training Support Center at Fort Eustis, 
Virginia, within the next FYDP.

                     Unspecified Minor Construction

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
project:
          (1) $930,000--Combat Pistol Qualification Course, 
        Fort Benning, Georgia

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Army 
construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2102--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 
2007.

      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2007.

          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year 
2007. This section would also provide an overall limit on the 
amount the Army may spend on military construction projects.

                            TITLE XXII--NAVY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,162,038,000 for Navy 
military construction and $814,197,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,219,871,000 for military construction and $818,082,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2007.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee is troubled by the January 10, 2006, guidance 
from the Office of Management and Budget to cease use of 
incremental funding of military construction projects except 
for the purposes of base realignment and closure activities and 
projects that have ``major national security impacts.''
    Due to the implementation of this guidance during the 
fiscal year 2007 budget process, Department of Defense 
components were forced to cut a number of important projects 
from the fiscal year 2007 program. As a result, several 
construction projects that are critical to military readiness, 
important to the effective conduct of military operations, or 
necessary to enhance quality of life have been indefinitely 
deferred. In at least one such case, incremental execution 
would likely be the more efficient means of funding and 
constructing the project.
    The committee notes that the Department has a record of 
effective management while utilizing incremental funding for 
military construction projects. As such, the committee 
recommends ``re-incrementing'' two projects contained in the 
budget request, including recapitalization of hangar 5 at Naval 
Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington. While this would result 
in a funding reduction in fiscal year 2007 of $31,153,000, the 
committee recommends full authorization for the project of 
$57,653,000 and expects the Secretary of the Navy to execute 
the project under proven incremental funding practices.

                          Planning and Design

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy complete 
planning and design activities for the following project:
          (1) $945,000--Full Scale Electric Drive Test 
        Facility, Naval Surface Warfare Center Shipyard Systems 
        Engineering Station, Pennsylvania

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Navy 
construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2202--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 
2007.

      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2007. Within amounts 
authorized by this section, the committee recommends an 
increase of $3,700,000 for a project to install air 
conditioning at housing units at Vista Del Sol, 29 Palms, 
California.

          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 
2007. This section would also provide an overall limit on the 
amount the Navy may spend on military construction projects.

  Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                      Year 2004 and 2005 Projects

    This section would amend section 2201(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B 
of Public Law 108-136), as amended, and the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (division B 
of Public Law 108-375), as amended, to consolidate authority 
for construction of an outlying landing field.

                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,156,148,000 for Air Force 
military construction and $1,938,209,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,233,673,000 for military construction and $1,924,209,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2007.

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                          Planning and Design

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $2,070,000--Information Technology Complex, Phase 
        1, Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio
          (2) $1,026,000--Pararescue Jumper/Combat Rescue 
        Officer Rescue and Recovery Training Center, Kirtland 
        AFB, New Mexico
          (3) $1,935,000--Software Support Facility, Robins 
        AFB, Georgia
          (4) $1,530,000--Logistics Readiness Center, Mountain 
        Home AFB, Idaho
          (5) $1,071,000--Fire Station, Grand Forks AFB, North 
        Dakota

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Air Force 
construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2302--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal 
year 2007.

      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2007.

        Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the Air Force's budget for fiscal 
year 2007. This section would also provide an overall limit on 
the amount the Air Force may spend on military construction 
projects.

                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,339,191,000 for defense 
agency military construction (including chemical weapon 
demilitarization construction) and $59,814,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2007. In addition, the budget request 
contained $191,220,000 for activities related to prior base 
realignment and closure (BRAC) activities and $5,626,223,000 
for activities related to the 2005 round of BRAC.
    The committee recommends authorization of $1,283,099,000 
for military construction and $59,814,000 for family housing 
for defense agencies for fiscal year 2007. In addition, the 
committee recommends authorization of $191,220,000 for prior 
BRAC round activities and $5,626,223,000 for BRAC 2005 
activities.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    As noted in title XXII, the committee is troubled by the 
January 10, 2006, guidance from the Office of Management and 
Budget to cease use of incremental funding of military 
construction projects except for the purposes of base 
realignment and closure activities and projects that have 
``major national security impacts.''
    In light of the Department of Defense's proven record of 
effective management while utilizing incremental funding for 
military construction projects, the committee recommends ``re-
incrementing'' the project to replace a clinic at MacDill Air 
Force Base, Florida. While this results in a funding reduction 
in fiscal year 2007 of $41,400,000, the committee recommends 
full authorization for the project of $92,000,000 and expects 
the Secretary of Defense to execute the project under proven 
incremental funding practices.
    The committee also recommends a reduction of $20,000,000 
for increment 2 of the Regional Security Operations Center at 
Fort Gordon, Georgia. While the committee supports the 
requirement for this facility and recommends full authorization 
for the project, the National Security Agency does not 
anticipate obligating the nearly $50,000,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 2006 until fall of 2006, at the earliest. Due to 
the large amount of unexpended funds available for this 
project, the committee believes it unlikely that all funds 
requested for fiscal year 2007 would be expended.

           Fuel Storage at Naval Base Point Loma, California

    As noted in title III, the committee is concerned about the 
fuel tank leakage at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) 
Fuel Storage Point (DFSP) at Naval Base Point Loma, California. 
Although DESC has a military construction project in the fiscal 
year 2008 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to replace 
existing bulk storage infrastructure with modern tanks and 
support equipment, the committee notes that the Department of 
Defense has a history of annually deferring projects within the 
FYDP due to budgetary pressures. The committee believes the 
construction project to address the fuel leakage at Naval Base 
Point Loma to be of utmost importance and urges the Secretary 
of Defense to ensure that the project remains programmed for 
fiscal year 2008.

             Missile Defense Agency Construction Activities

    The reduction of $7,592,000 for a Missile Defense Agency 
project at Kwajalein Atoll is without prejudice, and the 
committee expects the agency to execute this project through 
use of the authority provided in section 233 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163).

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized defense 
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2007. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

                      Section 2402--Family Housing

    This section would authorize construction and planning and 
design of family housing units for defense agency activities 
for fiscal year 2007.

               Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out energy conservation projects.

Section 2404--Authorized Base Closure and Realignment Activities Funded 
        Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005

    This section would authorize the amount for base 
realignment and closure (BRAC) activities and projects for 
fiscal year 2007. This section would also amend the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B 
of Public Law 109-163) to authorize the amount for BRAC 
activities and projects for fiscal year 2006.

    Section 2405--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

    This section would authorize specific amounts for each line 
item contained in the defense agencies' budgets for fiscal year 
2007. This section would also provide an overall limit on the 
amount the defense agencies may spend on military construction 
projects.

  Section 2406--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2006 Projects

    This section would amend the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public 
Law 109-163) to increase the authorization level for regional 
security operations centers in Augusta, Georgia and Kunia, 
Hawaii and for an operations and technology building in Menwith 
Hill, United Kingdom.

   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $220,985,000 for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) 
for fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends authorization of 
$200,985,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2007. This reduction 
reflects correction of a programming error contained in the 
budget request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of 
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act 
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for 
construction previously financed by the United States.

          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

    This section would authorize $200,985,000 as the U.S. 
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 
Investment Program.

            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $858,816,000 for military 
construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 
2007. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 
2007 of $1,019,672,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard.....................................    $518,403,000
Air National Guard......................................    $212,788,000
Army Reserve............................................    $169,487,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................     $55,158,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................     $56,836,000

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                Planning and Design, Air National Guard

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $502,000--Replace Pararescue Complex, Gabreski 
        Air National Guard Base, New York
          (2) $1,000,000--Wing Operations and Training Complex, 
        McEntire Joint Reserve Base, South Carolina
          (3) $1,000,000--Squadron Operations Facility/Relocate 
        Main Gate, McGhee-Tyson Air National Guard Base, 
        Tennessee
          (4) $801,000--Information Warfare Aggressor Squadron 
        Facility, McCord Air Force Base, Washington

                Planning and Design, Army National Guard

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete 
planning and design activities for the following projects:
          (1) $1,031,000--Combined Support Maintenance Shop, 
        Camp Smith, New York
          (2) $749,000--Add/Alt Readiness Center, Salem, Oregon

                    Planning and Design, Air Reserve

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $1,008,000--Joint Deployment Processing Facility, 
        March Air Reserve Base, California
          (2) $1,134,000--C-17 and C-5 Squadron Operations and 
        Training Facility, Travis AFB, California

                   Planning and Design, Army Reserve

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete 
planning and design activities for the following project:
          (1) $252,000--Combat Support Training Center Range 
        Control Facility, Camp Parks, California
          (2) $2,414,000--Syracuse Armed Forces Reserve Center/
        OMS/AMSA/Unheated Storage, Mattydale, New York

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISION


   Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for 
fiscal year 2007. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

        TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be 
                            Specified by Law

    This section would provide that authorizations for military 
construction projects, repair of real property, land 
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, 
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will 
expire on October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to 
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated 
before October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later.

                      Section 2702--Effective Date

    This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, 
XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act shall take effect on October 1, 
2006, or upon enactment of this Act, whichever is later.

         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


    Energy Savings and Renewable Energy Opportunities at Joint Bases

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2007, a 
report on the potential use of energy conservation measures and 
renewable energy systems at joint military bases. The report 
should include energy savings and renewable energy 
opportunities in the areas of facility infrastructure, energy 
supply and transmission systems, and vehicles. The committee 
believes that the Department of Defense's 12 joint bases 
present new opportunities for energy savings and expects that 
this report will explore such opportunities and outline a plan 
of action for exploiting energy conservation and renewable 
energy options at such locations.

       Remediation of Property at the Former Fort Ord, California

    Fort Ord was closed as part of the 1991 Base Realignment 
and Closure (BRAC) round. A March 22, 1995 Memorandum of 
Understanding between the Army and the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) supported the transfer of approximately 7,500 
acres of land from the Army to BLM. Despite entreaties from 
Congress to expedite plans for remediation of the property and 
the passage of more than 11 years since the agreement, no 
definitive protocols or timeline for remediation of the 
property have been completed. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Army to engage the BLM on this matter 
submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by 
November 1, 2006, with a plan for achieving clean up of the BLM 
lands at the former Fort Ord.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes


   Section 2801--Increase in Maximum Annual Amount Authorized To Be 
             Obligated for Emergency Military Construction

    This section would amend section 2803 of title 10, United 
States Code, to increase from $45,000,000 to $60,000,000 the 
maximum amount of funds the Secretary of Defense may annually 
obligate using emergency construction authorities.

Section 2802--Applicability of Local Comparability of Room Pattern and 
 Floor Area Requirements to Construction, Acquisition, and Improvement 
                   to Military Unaccompanied Housing

    This section would amend section 2826 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require that floor space in unaccompanied 
housing be built to standards consistent with local private 
construction.

 Section 2803--Authority To Use Proceeds From Sale of Military Family 
      Housing To Support Military Housing Privatization Initiative

    This section would amend section 2831 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the transfer of proceeds from the 
handling and disposal of family housing units into the 
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund, which is 
used to support military family housing privatization 
activities. Current law provides for the transfer of such 
proceeds to the military family housing management account.

 Section 2804--Repeal of Special Requirement for Military Construction 
                           Contracts on Guam

    This section would repeal section 2864 of title 10, United 
States Code, which places special limitations on military 
construction contracts on Guam.

 Section 2805--Congressional Notification of Cancellation Ceiling for 
       Department of Defense Energy Savings Performance Contracts

    This section would amend section 2865 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require a notice and wait period for the 
Secretary of Defense before the award of an energy savings 
performance contract that contains a cancellation ceiling in 
excess of $7,000,000.

  Section 2806--Expansion of Authority To Convey Property at Military 
             Installations To Support Military Construction

    This section would amend section 2869 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military 
departments to exchange excess property for construction 
projects, land, housing, or to support agreements to limit 
encroachments under section 2684a of title 10, United States 
Code.

    Section 2807--Pilot Projects for Acquisition or Construction of 
                     Military Unaccompanied Housing

    This section would amend section 2881a of title 10, United 
States Code, to reduce notification and wait periods required 
before the Secretary of the Navy may enter into a contract for 
the privatization of unaccompanied housing using the 
authorities provided by section 2881a. The section would also 
extend from September 30, 2007 to September 30, 2011, the 
expiration of the pilot authority provided by section 2881a of 
title 10, United States Code and increase the number of pilot 
projects authorized from three to six.

Section 2808--Consideration of Alternative and More Efficient Uses for 
  General Officer and Flag Officer Quarters in Excess of 6,000 Square 
                                  Feet

    This section would amend section 2831 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to identify 
and consider alternative uses for general and flag officer 
housing units that exceed 6,000 square feet. The committee 
notes that such large housing units have extraordinary 
operations, maintenance, and utility costs, and believes that 
many such large facilities would be more efficiently utilized 
for alternative purposes, such as administrative facilities.

 Section 2809--Repeal of Temporary Minor Military Construction Program

    This section would repeal section 2810 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B 
of Public Law 109-163), which provides for temporary authority 
to expend minor construction funds at increased limits for 
construction of child development centers.

Section 2810--One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority To Use 
 Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects Outside the 
                             United States

    This section would extend through 2007 the authority 
provided by section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), which permits 
the Secretary of Defense to utilize operation and maintenance 
funds to construct facilities necessary for temporary 
operational requirements related to a declaration of war, 
national emergency, or contingency.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


   Section 2821--Consolidation of Department of Defense Authorities 
           Regarding Granting of Easements for Rights-of-Way

    This section would consolidate provisions in chapter 159 of 
title 10, United States Code, which govern the granting of 
easements for rights-of-way by the Department of Defense and 
make several technical corrections. This section would make no 
substantive change to the law.

 Section 2822--Authority To Grant Restrictive Easements in Connection 
                         With Land Conveyances

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to grant restrictive easements when 
disposing of certain properties. Such easements would allow for 
greater protection of historic properties.

 Section 2823--Maximum Term of Leases for Structures and Real Property 
 Relating to Structures in Foreign Countries Needed for Purposes Other 
                          Than Family Housing

    This section would amend section 2675 of title 10, United 
States Code, to increase from 5 to 10 years the maximum length 
of lease term the secretary of a military department may enter 
into for non-housing structures and real properties located in 
foreign countries.

Section 2824--Consolidation of Laws Relating to Transfer of Department 
  of Defense Real Property Within the Department and to Other Federal 
                                Agencies

    This section would consolidate provisions in title 10, 
United States Code, which govern the transfer of real property 
within the Department of Defense and to other federal agencies. 
This section would make no substantive change to the law.

     Section 2825--Congressional Notice Requirements in Advance of 
       Acquisition of Land by Condemnation for Military Purposes

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense, when acquiring land for military 
purposes, should make every effort to do so by purchases from 
willing sellers, and that the use of condemnation, eminent 
domain, or seizure procedures should only be employed as a 
matter of last resort in cases of compelling national security 
requirements. This section would also amend section 2663 of 
title 10, United States Code, to require a notice and wait 
period before the Secretary of Defense may begin condemnation, 
eminent domain, or seizure procedures to acquire property.

                Subtitle C--Base Closure and Realignment


 Section 2831--Treatment of Lease Proceeds from Military Installations 
       Approved for Closure or Realignment After January 1, 2005

    This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United 
States Code, to ensure that lease proceeds received at a 
military installation closed or realigned by a base closure law 
are deposited into the appropriate base closure and realignment 
account.

                      Subtitle D--Land Conveyances


Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
dispose of approximately 499 acres at the former Naval Air 
Station Barbers Point, Hawaii, that are subject to the Ford 
Island Master Development Agreement, by September 30, 2008.
    In addition, the committee is aware that the Navy continues 
to retain additional property at NAS Barbers Point that was 
directed for disposal by the 1993 and 1995 Base Realignment and 
Closure rounds. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy 
to return this property to productive use by September 30, 
2008, as well.

 Section 2842--Modification of Land Acquisition Authority, Perquimans 
                         County, North Carolina

    This section would amend section 2846 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B 
of Public Law 107-107), as amended, to increase the acreage 
authorized for acquisition.

 Section 2843--Land Conveyance, Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Pulaski 
                            County, Virginia

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey approximately 85 acres at the Radford Army Ammunition 
Plant in Pulaski County, Virginia to the Virginia Department of 
Veterans' Services for the purposes of establishing a veterans' 
cemetery.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Section 2851--Availability of Community Planning Assistance Relating to 
 Encroachment of Civilian Communities on Military Facilities Used for 
                      Training by the Armed Forces

    This section would amend section 2391 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the use of grants for the purposes of 
addressing encroachment of state-owned and operated national 
guard facilities that are subject to significant training use 
by the armed forces.

Section 2852--Prohibitions Against Making Certain Military Airfields or 
             Facilities Available for Use by Civil Aircraft

    This section would prohibit the regular use of property at, 
or conveyance of property for, the civil aviation purposes at 
Marine Corps Air Station and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, 
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, and Naval Air Station North 
Island, California.

  Section 2853--Naming Housing Facility at Fort Carson, Colorado, in 
     Honor of Joel Hefley, a Member of the House of Representatives

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
designate one of the military family housing areas or 
facilities constructed for Fort Carson, Colorado, using housing 
privatization authorities provided by subchapter IV of chapter 
169 of title 10, United States Code in honor of Representative 
Joel Hefley.

   Section 2854--Naming Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center at Rock 
  Island, Illinois, in Honor of Lane Evans, a Member of the House of 
                            Representatives

    This section would designate the Navy and Marine Corps 
reserve center at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois as the ``Lane 
Evans Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center.''

Section 2855--Naming of Research Laboratory at Air Force Rome Research 
Site, Rome, New York, in Honor of Sherwood L. Boehlert, a Member of the 
                        House of Representatives


  This section would designate the new laboratory building at the Air 
Force Rome Research Site, Rome, New York as the ``Sherwood L. Boehlert 
                         Engineering Center.''


 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $15.8 billion for atomic 
energy defense activities and energy supply of the Department 
of Energy for fiscal year 2007. Of this amount, $9.3 billion is 
for the programs of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, $6.5 billion is for environmental and other 
defense activities, and $6.0 million is for energy supply. The 
committee recommends $15.8 billion, the amount of the request.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                National Nuclear Security Administration


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $9.3 billion for the National 
Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2007. The 
committee recommends $9.3 billion, a decrease of $50.0 million.

                           Weapons Activities

    The budget request contained $6,407.9 million for Weapons 
Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The 
committee recommends $6,467.9 million, an increase of $60.0 
million.

Directed Stockpile Work

    The budget request contained $1,410.3 million for Directed 
Stockpile Work. The committee recommends $1,410.3 million, the 
amount of the budget request.
            Reliable Replacement Warhead
    The budget request contained $27.7 million within Directed 
Stockpile Work for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) 
program. The committee notes that section 3111 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) established the objectives of the RRW program and 
established requirements for both an interim report, which the 
committee has received, and a final report, which is due by 
March 1, 2007.
    The committee notes that elsewhere in this title, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a plan for the transformation of the nuclear 
weapons complex. The vision for this plan will necessarily be 
influenced by the specific design and production capability 
requirements deemed essential for supporting the RRW program. 
The committee therefore urges the Secretary of Energy and the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure complete transparency between 
the RRW Project Officer's Group and those National Nuclear 
Security Administration and Department of Defense personnel 
working on the nuclear weapons complex transformation plan.
    The committee recommends $27.7 million for the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead program, the amount of the budget request.
            Responsive Infrastructure
    The budget request contained $15.4 million for the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) responsive 
infrastructure.
    The committee fully supports the development of the 
responsive infrastructure and in section 3111 of this title 
requires the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a plan for the transformation of the nuclear weapons 
complex to Congress. The committee encourages NNSA to establish 
an Office of Transformation within Defense Programs to plan and 
execute actions to achieve the responsive infrastructure goal.
    The committee recommends $15.4 million, the amount of the 
budget request, for responsive infrastructure, and authorizes 
the Administrator of the NNSA to use up to $15.4 million of the 
funds authorized to establish an Office of Transformation. 
Should the Administrator elect to establish an Office of 
Transformation, the Administrator shall submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report stating the specific 
charter for this new office within 60 days after the 
establishment of such office.
            Study of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty 
                    Methodology
    Section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) established the 
objectives for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. 
The RRW program is intended to increase the reliability, safety 
and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile. One of the key 
objectives of the program is to further reduce the likelihood 
of the resumption of underground nuclear weapons testing. This 
objective is carried out by using designs that are consistent 
with basic design parameters employed in those nuclear weapons 
which have undergone testing or by otherwise using components 
that are well understood or certifiable without the need to 
resume underground testing.
    According to documents accompanying the fiscal year 2007 
Department of Energy budget request, the RRW program will rely 
upon the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) 
campaigns to assess whether the RRW can be certified without 
underground nuclear testing. A critical analytic tool employed 
by the national laboratories in making this determination is 
the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) 
methodology. A recent report by the Government Accountability 
Office found that the QMU methodology, while conceptually well-
accepted, is still in its early stages and requires maturation 
and further refinement.
    The committee understands the importance of the QMU 
methodology in establishing a scientific basis for assessing 
whether the RRW will be able to be certified without 
underground nuclear testing. Given the importance of the RRW 
program and the need to reduce the likelihood of having to 
conduct an underground nuclear test in order to certify this 
warhead, the committee believes that an independent review of 
the NNSA laboratory utilization of QMU methodology is required 
to gain confidence that the RRW program objectives can be 
achieved.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct an independent assessment of the QMU 
methodology employed by the national laboratories and whether 
this methodology can be used to certify an RRW without 
underground nuclear testing. The Academy shall ensure that the 
panel chartered to conduct this review has among its members 
the following:
          (1) Former weapons designers;
          (2) Individuals well-versed in the underlying science 
        associated with nuclear weapons, including the physics 
        associated with weapon primaries and secondaries; and
          (3) Individuals familiar with the application of QMU 
        principles, including probabilistic risk assessment 
        methods, in industries such as the nuclear power 
        industry.
    Of the amounts made available to the Department of Energy 
for weapons activities, $2.0 million shall be available for 
carrying out this study. The Academy report shall be submitted 
to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2007.
            Transformation Plan for the Nuclear Weapons Complex
    The committee notes that the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review 
set forth the requirements for a responsive infrastructure 
within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 
weapons complex. Through multiple hearings and briefings before 
the subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the committee has been 
informed of initiatives that would modernize the Nuclear 
Weapons Complex to achieve the desired responsive 
infrastructure capability while consolidating and disposing of 
special nuclear material. The committee also notes that section 
3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 (Public Law 109-163) established objectives for the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead program, an initiative that has 
the potential to enhance the safety, security and reliability 
of the nuclear stockpile, while setting the requirements for 
the capabilities of the responsive infrastructure.
    The committee includes a provision (section 3111) that 
would require the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of 
Defense to develop a plan to transform the nuclear weapons 
complex so as to achieve a responsive infrastructure. This plan 
shall be submitted to Congress by February 1, 2007, and shall 
meet certain objectives.
    With respect to eliminating duplication of production 
capability except as necessary to ensure the safety, 
reliability and security of the stockpile, the committee 
intends the transformation plan to look at all production 
functions including but not limited to primary, secondary and 
non-nuclear production elements. The committee intends that the 
national security mission continue as the primary mission for 
the national security laboratories. Other laboratory work (such 
as work conducted for the Offices of Science or Energy Research 
within the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland 
Security or for the Intelligence Community) should be conducted 
so as to maintain the primary mission of supporting the nuclear 
weapons stockpile. The committee encourages the Secretary of 
Energy in the formulation of this transformation plan to take a 
long-term strategic view of the desired optimal mix of NNSA 
primary mission work and other laboratory work to ensure a 
responsive capability into the future. With respect to both the 
production plants and the national security laboratories, the 
committee expects the transformation plan to consider how best 
to maintain the requisite human capital expertise while 
transforming to a more efficient complex.
    The committee establishes as an objective the elimination 
of category I and II special nuclear materials from the 
national security laboratories by 2010. This objective does not 
preclude the retention of category I and II special nuclear 
materials at a national security laboratory, if the 
transformation plan for the nuclear weapons complex envisions a 
pit production capability at a national security laboratory.
    Based on testimony before the subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces, the committee is aware of NNSA plans to purchase more 
non-nuclear weapons components from commercial suppliers in the 
future. While the committee supports those business practices 
that will lead to a more efficient enterprise, the committee 
also has some concerns for the security and cost implications 
of further outsourcing and expects the transformation plan to 
specifically address these concerns.
    The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
reviewing the military requirements for the W-80 warhead and is 
considering deferring the planned life extension program (LEP). 
The committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, working with the Nuclear Weapons 
Council, to prepare a plan for redirecting the human resources 
and facilities currently required for the W-80 LEP to the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead program and complex 
transformation. This plan shall be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2007.

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign

    The budget request contained $451.2 million for the 
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, 
including $111.4 million for the National Ignition Facility 
(NIF) construction and $143.4 million for the NIF demonstration 
campaign.
    The committee fully supports the NIF program's goal of 
beginning the initial ignition campaign in 2010 with a series 
of integrated experiments that would culminate in full energy 
experiments in 2011. The committee believes that full funding 
of NIF construction and demonstration programs is essential in 
order to achieve ignition in 2010. Furthermore, the committee 
believes that additional investments in ignition target design 
and testing will enhance project success.
    The committee recommends $461.2 million for the Inertial 
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, an 
increase of $10.0 million to support enhanced target production 
and characterization capabilities and for tests on the Omega 
and Z facilities.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

    The budget request contained $1,685.8 million for Readiness 
in Technical Base and Facilities.
    The committee is encouraged by the progress made in the 
reduction of deferred maintenance backlogs in the defense 
nuclear complex. In section 3111, the committee requires the 
Department of Energy and Department of Defense to submit a 
transformation plan for the nuclear weapons complex to achieve 
the responsive infrastructure envisioned by the Nuclear Posture 
Review. Recognizing that this plan may provide for 
modernization of the Pantex and the Y-12 production plants in 
Texas and Tennessee, respectively, the committee also 
recognizes that both facilities need additional infrastructure 
support as soon as possible.
    The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million for 
plant infrastructure repair and equipment replacement at 
Pantex, to be executed in a manner consistent with the 
priorities of both the 10 year site comprehensive plan and the 
transformation plan required by this title.
    The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million for 
the Y-12 complex, to include: $2.0 million for material recycle 
and recovery to process materials generated in the Directed 
Stockpile Work accelerated dismantlement program, and $15.0 
million for plant infrastructure repair and equipment 
replacement consistent with the priorities of both the 10 year 
site comprehensive plan and the transformation plan required by 
this title.
    The committee fully supports the efforts of the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) to reduce safeguards and security costs throughout the 
complex by consolidating nuclear material storage and by 
accelerating certain construction projects that will permit 
even further consolidation of nuclear materials. The 
transformation plan for the nuclear weapons complex, required 
by section 3111, should assist NNSA senior managers in ensuring 
that any maintenance or upgrades to existing facilities or 
construction of new facilities will be consistent with both the 
10 year site comprehensive plans and the transformation plan's 
vision for the complex of the future.
    The committee is also aware of design changes to the Highly 
Enriched Uranium Material Facility (HEUMF) at Y-12 required by 
revisions to the design basis threat policy and resulting from 
construction problems with this new facility. The committee 
recognizes the importance of the HEUMF project in achieving 
material consolidation objectives at the Y-12 complex. However, 
the committee is disappointed with the extent of the problems 
that have surfaced with a relatively simple project. Should 
additional funds be required to move forward with the HEUMF 
facility in fiscal year 2007, the Secretary of Energy shall 
submit a reprogramming request to the congressional defense 
committees.
    The committee recommends $1,719.8 million, an increase of 
$34.0 million for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.

Safeguards and Security

    The budget request contained $721.4 million for safeguards 
and security.
    The committee continues to be deeply concerned with 
safeguards and security practices and the costs associated with 
complying with design basis threat (DBT) requirements 
throughout the complex. As evidenced by section 3113 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163), the committee believes that the Department of 
Energy (DOE) must employ a risk based approach in decision-
making associated with DBT compliance. The committee notes with 
approval the decision by the Department to waive compliance 
with certain aspects of the DBT at the Y-12 plant in Tennessee 
pending completion of the Highly Enriched Uranium Material 
Facility.
    The committee is aware that the Department has discussed 
shifting accounting for security costs from direct to indirect 
costs. The committee believes that only the use of direct cost 
accounting for security costs provides the necessary 
transparency into what it takes to comply with DOE's DBT 
policy. Accordingly, the committee directs that until directed 
otherwise by Congress, the Department shall continue to employ 
direct cost accounting for all security costs.
    The committee supports the efforts of the Administrator of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration to enhance 
security practices through consolidation of nuclear material at 
individual sites and throughout the complex. The committee 
notes that the nuclear weapons complex transformation plan 
required in section 3111 should help the Department focus its 
attention on innovative ways to reduce safeguards and security 
costs through the consolidation of nuclear material.
    The committee recommends $737.4 million, an increase of 
$16.0 million, to include an additional $8.0 million for 
Pantex, and an additional $8.0 million for Y-12 to be used at 
both sites for unfunded safeguards and security requirements 
consistent with site safeguards and security priority plans.

Test Readiness

    The budget request contained $14.8 million within the 
Science Campaign for test readiness.
    Section 3113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) mandated an 18 month 
readiness posture for the resumption of underground nuclear 
weapons testing by the United States. While the committee has 
no indication of the need to resume underground nuclear testing 
in the near future, it does believe that maintaining the 18 
month readiness posture as directed by Congress is important to 
national security. The committee notes that funding shortfalls 
have precluded the Department of Energy from achieving the 18 
month readiness posture as required by law.
    Accordingly, the committee supports full funding of the 
test readiness capability.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

    The budget request contained $1,726.2 million for defense 
nuclear nonproliferation programs.
    The committee fully supports the goals of the Department of 
Energy's nuclear nonproliferation programs but remains 
concerned with uncosted, uncommitted balances in several of the 
nonproliferation accounts due to the delays and problems in 
resolving government to government agreements for critical 
projects. The committee shifts funds within the 
nonproliferation account into programs that have experienced 
greater success or that are viewed as more executable based on 
the above concerns noted with government to government 
agreements.
    The committee authorizes $1,616.2 million, a decrease of 
$110.0 million.

Global Threat Reduction Initiative

    The budget request contained $106.8 million for the Global 
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI).
    The committee supports the goals of this program, 
especially those activities conducted outside the United 
States.
    The committee recommends $126.8 million, an increase of 
$20.0 million as follows: $5.0 million for international 
radiological threat reduction and $15.0 million to be used 
exclusively for other GTRI activities outside the United 
States.

International Materials Protection and Cooperation

    The budget request contained $413.2 million for 
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 
(MPC&A), including $40.1 million for the Second Line of Defense 
Megaports program.
    The committee fully supports the program's emphasis on 
national programs and sustainability as the way ahead in 
ensuring that the progress which has been made in the area of 
upgrades to nuclear warhead and nuclear material security are 
sustained by parent countries into the future. The committee 
also supports the National Nuclear Security Administration's 
efforts in pursuing cooperation with international partners 
interested in participating in the Megaports initiative.
    The committee recommends $433.2 million, an increase of 
$20.0 million, to include $5.0 million for material 
consolidation and conversion and $15.0 million for the Second 
Line of Defense Megaports program.
            Megaports Program
    In recognition of the Memorandum of Understanding 
implemented in April 2005 to formalize the ongoing partnership 
between the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Homeland Security's 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the NNSA Megaports 
initiative is directed to continue to closely coordinate its 
efforts to install nuclear detection monitors at foreign ports 
with the Department of Homeland Security's Container Security 
Initiative. Such coordination shall continue to include, but 
not be limited to, joint outreach missions and port 
assessments, the completion of joint agreements with host 
governments where mutual program interests exist, and on-the-
ground collaboration in the ports where the two programs are 
currently operational.
            Radiation Detection Technology
    The committee is concerned with the potential for redundant 
research and development efforts in radiation detection 
technology, and notes the concerns of the Department of Energy 
Inspector General February 2006 audit report entitled ``Nuclear 
Detection Devices,'' namely that there is a lack of 
coordination between the Department of Energy and the 
Department of Homeland Security over accountability for such 
research efforts. The committee encourages the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to work closely with the Department of 
Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office in order 
to ensure there is no duplication of technology research 
efforts, but rather a collaborative, complementary approach to 
research in areas of common interest.

Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility

    The budget request contained $603.3 million for fissile 
materials disposition, including $289.5 million for 
construction of the U.S. Mixed Oxide (MOX) facility and $34.7 
million for Russian surplus fissile materials disposition.
    The committee supports in principle the goals of the 
September 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement 
to dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons grade plutonium 
as MOX fuel in both the U.S. and Russia on roughly parallel 
paths. For the past two years, the MOX project has been on hold 
pending resolution of a liability agreement between the United 
States and the Russian Federation. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) cut 
$250.0 million in funding for the MOX program due to the 
liability impasse. However, last summer the substantive issues 
associated with this liability agreement were resolved, pending 
formal approval between governments.
    In a new development arising out of U.S.-Russian 
negotiations on the plutonium disposition program in February 
2006, it appears that Russian interest in the original MOX 
program may have fundamentally changed. The National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of State 
report as of March 2006, that Russia no longer prefers to use 
light water (VVER-1000) reactors unless the U.S. and the 
international community bear the full cost of this approach, 
estimated at $2.7 billion. Rather, it appears the Russians 
would like to explore a new two-pillar approach to the MOX 
program, consisting of limited disposition in an existing BN-
600 reactor (disposition in such a reactor was part of the 
originally envisioned program), and eventually larger-scale 
disposition in a BN-800 fast reactor. The estimated cost of 
completing the BN-800 fast reactor by 2012 is $1.6 billion, yet 
it is unclear exactly how this project would be funded in terms 
of Russian expectations for international assistance. The U.S. 
has not supported the fast reactor (breeder) design due to 
proliferation concerns, and the BN-800 reactor has never been a 
method for Russian plutonium disposition in the program of 
record. Thus, the committee has reservations about Russian 
intentions to proceed with the program as originally 
envisioned.
    On a separate note, in December 2005, the Department of 
Energy (DOE) Inspector General (IG) issued a report on ``The 
Status of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility,'' which 
strongly criticized management of the U.S. MOX project, citing 
significant cost overruns and project management weaknesses. 
According to the IG, the July 2005 design andconstruction cost 
estimate for the U.S. MOX facility exceeded the 2002 estimate by $2.5 
billion. The report points to NNSA efforts to improve MOX facility 
management; however, the IG concludes that ``additional enhancements to 
the project are needed.'' In addition to the concerns noted above 
regarding Russian intentions to comply with the 2000 Plutonium 
Management and Disposition Agreement, the committee is concerned about 
the ability of the U.S. MOX facility to move ahead at a reasonable pace 
and cost.
    In spite of the concerns noted above, the committee 
believes that continued storage of weapons grade plutonium at 
the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, and elsewhere 
throughout the country at Department of Energy facilities, 
involves significant security risks and substantial costs for 
appropriate safeguards. Based on preliminary discussions with 
the Department of Energy, the committee is operating under the 
assumption that the Savannah River Site MOX project is a cost-
effective and efficient method for the United States to dispose 
of a significant portion of its plutonium inventory as part of 
a broader plutonium disposition plan that the committee directs 
the Department to provide elsewhere in this title. Accordingly, 
the committee believes that moving forward expeditiously with 
construction and operation of the U.S. MOX facility will 
significantly reduce the costs and risks associated with 
managing domestic weapons-grade plutonium.
    Proceeding with construction and operation of the U.S. MOX 
facility will also underline the United States commitment to 
fulfilling its obligations under both the 2000 Plutonium 
Management and Disposition Agreement, and under Article VI of 
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The committee does not 
waver from its historical support for the goals of the 2000 
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, including 
support for international contributions towards the Russian 
plutonium disposition program.
    While generally pleased with the progress on DOE programs 
with the Russian Federation to cooperatively reduce the nuclear 
threat, the committee is concerned that the current lack of 
Russian support for funding either a MOX project or other 
plutonium disposition program, consistent with the 2000 
Agreement, may significantly lessen the willingness of other 
countries to provide funding. The committee firmly believes 
that the Russian Federation should immediately take positive 
steps to establish meaningful Russian funding for the 
construction of a Russian MOX facility or other Russian 
plutonium disposition facility to meet its obligations under 
the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. 
Committee support for the Russian fissile materials disposition 
program is contingent upon taking such steps.
    Based on the lack of certainty over Russia's commitment to 
funding its domestic plutonium disposition program under the 
current agreement, the committee recommends no funds for the 
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, a 
reduction of $34.7 million. Of those funds available from prior 
fiscal years for the Russian Surplus Fissile Material 
Disposition program, no more than $10.0 million shall be 
available for expenditure until 30 days after the Secretary of 
Energy has certified to the congressional defense committees 
that Russia and the United States have reached agreement on a 
plan for a plutonium disposition program in Russia that is 
consistent with the intent of the 2000 Plutonium Management and 
Disposition Agreement. The committee also observes that an 
April 25, 2006, reprogramming notification from the Department 
of Energy identified $229.0 million in total obligation 
authority for the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition 
program available as a funding source for the elimination of 
weapons grade plutonium production program in Russia due to 
delays in proceeding with the Russian MOX program. Thus, the 
committee notes that there already are adequate funds for the 
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program in the 
event that the Russian Federation comes forward with a renewed 
commitment for Russian financing of a plutonium disposition 
program consistent with the 2000 Agreement.
    The committee recommends $174.2 million for construction of 
the U.S. MOX facility, a reduction of $115.3 million. 
Furthermore, no more than $50.0 million of the funds authorized 
in fiscal year 2007 for the U.S. MOX construction project shall 
be available until 30 days after the Secretary of Energy 
certifies to the congressional defense committees the 
following:
          (1) Given the sunk costs to date for the U.S. MOX 
        project and an evaluation of other alternatives for 
        plutonium disposition, proceeding with the U.S. MOX 
        project is the most effective means, from both a cost 
        and technical perspective, for managing and disposing 
        of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium; and
          (2) The Department has developed a corrective action 
        plan for addressing the issues raised by the Inspector 
        General concerning the management of the U.S. MOX 
        project.

Should the Secretary make the above certification that the MOX 
method of plutonium disposition is the most effective, and 
should the Department therefore require additional funds in 
fiscal year 2007 to keep construction of the U.S. MOX facility 
on track, the Secretary shall submit a reprogramming request to 
the congressional defense committees.
    Along with the above certifications, the Secretary shall 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2007, providing a detailed plan to include estimated 
cost and schedule information for management, consolidation and 
disposition of all weapons-grade plutonium held by the 
Department of Energy. This report may be combined with the 
March 1, 2007, report on ``off-spec'' plutonium required 
elsewhere in this title.
    The committee recommends $453.3 million, a decrease of 
$150.0 million for Fissile Materials Disposition.

Transfer Authority To Fund New or Emerging Activities Outside the 
        United States Under the Global Threat Reduction Initiative

    The committee fully supports the goals of the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative program to identify, secure and remove or 
dispose of high-risk, vulnerable and radioactive materials 
around the world that pose a potential threat to the United 
States and the international community. The committee also 
notes that while the total costs to secure nuclear materials in 
a given location may not be significant, that the existing 
budget process for defense nuclear nonproliferation, and in 
particular for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, may not 
be flexible or responsive enough to allow the Department of 
Energy to take advantage of newly emerging or newly identified 
opportunities to seize nuclear material. The committee believes 
that making available reasonable funding from uncosted, 
uncommitted accounts within defense nuclear nonproliferation 
but outside of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative program 
may allow the Department to quickly seize and safeguard nuclear 
material in a responsive manner.
    Therefore, the committee authorizes the Secretary of 
Energy, from within uncosted, uncommitted balances in defense 
nuclear nonproliferation accounts in fiscal year 2007, to fund 
new or emerging activities outside the United States under the 
Global Threat Reduction Initiative that are not otherwise 
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2007. This action 
does not require a reprogramming request but does require the 
Secretary, within 15 days of the transfer of such funds, to 
notify the congressional defense committees of the 
circumstances surrounding and the justification for each such 
transfer. Such authority shall be limited to transfers from the 
uncosted, uncommitted balances of nonproliferation accounts 
outside the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. In addition, 
such transfers shall not exceed a total of $10.0 million or 10 
percent of the uncosted, uncommitted account program balance 
for each occurrence, and only one transfer can be made from any 
one program. The total amount of such transfers shall not 
exceed $30.0 million in fiscal year 2007.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $6,496.2 million for 
environmental and other defense activities.
    The committee recommends $6,546.2 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million.

Disposition of Plutonium Unsuitable for Conversion to Mixed Oxide Fuel

    Since 1990 over four tons of plutonium were transported 
from Rocky Flats, Colorado to storage at the Savannah River 
Site in Aiken, South Carolina to expedite closure of the Rocky 
Flats site. A significant percentage of this material is 
unlikely to be suitable for conversion to Mixed Oxide (MOX) 
fuel through the Department of Energy's plutonium disposition 
program. In addition, at least four tons of plutonium are 
stored at Hanford, Washington that will not meet the acceptance 
specifications for conversion to MOX fuel.
    In 1997, the Department's Fissile Materials Disposition 
office down selected a ceramic immobilization technology for 
disposition of these ``off-spec'' materials. While this program 
was cancelled, the committee is concerned that the Department's 
efforts to dispose of these ``off-spec'' materials are not 
receiving sufficient attention and are not taking into account 
the significant work already invested in evaluating options for 
disposing of these materials. As a result, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees stating the Department's plans 
for the disposition of all surplus plutonium within the 
Department's inventory that is not suitable for conversion to 
mixed oxide fuel. This report shall be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2007, and shall 
include a review of the Department's prior plan, as well as a 
proposed method for disposition and a program plan including a 
schedule and the estimated cost for implementing the plan.

Hanford Defense Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

    The budget request contained $690.0 million for the Waste 
Treatment and Immobilization Plant (Waste Treatment Plant) in 
Hanford, Washington. It is the largest and most complex nuclear 
design and construction project in the nation, and is 
critically important for successful cleanup of the Department 
of Energy Hanford site. The committee is concerned about rising 
costs and resolution of technical challenges associated with 
the design and construction of the Waste Treatment Plant. In 
order to address these concerns, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) 
requested two reports from the Army Corps of Engineers, one 
documenting the cost validation of the estimated cost to 
complete the project based on both the constrained and 
unconstrained funding scenarios, and the second report 
evaluating the baseline ground motion criteria. In addition, 
industry oversight teams were assembled in 2005 to provide 
critical independent assessments of the design, cost and 
schedule estimates for the project. The committee understands 
that the Department will consider the recommendations of these 
studies and will develop a revised cost and schedulebaseline. 
Once the Department has determined a path forward, the committee 
intends to carefully review the revised plans for the Waste Treatment 
Plant.
    The committee is concerned with the Department's management 
of the Waste Treatment Plant project. Recent investigations 
have identified failures of management within the Department 
including contracting deficiencies, incomplete reporting, 
insufficient communication between Department of Energy 
Headquarters and the Office of River Protection, and the lack 
of ability to provide clear direction to the contractor.
    The committee notes that in testimony before the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives in April 2006, the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) recommended the Department discontinue using a 
fast-track, design-build approach to completing the Waste 
Treatment Plant and instead consider the feasibility of 
completing at least 90 percent of the facility design or 
facility component design before restarting construction. The 
committee strongly urges the Department to evaluate whether 
implementing this GAO recommendation might provide for a more 
disciplined and cost-effective way forward given the 
significant design problems experienced to date.
    The committee is aware that in fiscal year 2007 the 
Department intends to employ a contractor to serve as the 
project management agent. The committee is supportive of the 
Department's efforts to correct management deficiencies and 
increase oversight; however, the committee is concerned about 
the potential transfer of project management and accountability 
to an outside entity. The committee holds the Department 
accountable for successful management of the Waste Treatment 
Plant project.
    The committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) has experience in evaluating the design of large nuclear 
projects and that NRC technical experts, who in the near future 
may be reviewing license applications for new commercial 
nuclear power plants, could benefit from having the opportunity 
to be exposed to the technical discussions and design reviews 
at the Waste Treatment Plant project. The committee encourages 
the Department to invite technical representatives from the NRC 
to observe the on-site federal office technical and design 
review activities at the Waste Treatment Plant. This step, 
however, does not insert the NRC into any regulatory or project 
management role for the Waste Treatment Project.
    The committee recommends $690.0 million, the amount of the 
budget request. None of the funds authorized shall be available 
for the employment of a contractor to serve as the project 
management agent.

Savannah River Site Defense Environmental Cleanup

    The budget request contained $1,084.4 million for defense 
environmental cleanup at the Savannah River Site, South 
Carolina.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy 
may not have fully funded its legal and regulatory commitments 
within the budget request for defense environmental cleanup at 
the Savannah River Site for fiscal year 2007. The committee is 
concerned that without sufficient funding the Department may be 
unable to meet its legal and regulatory obligations under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901-
6992), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act (CERCLA) (26 U.S.C. 4611-4682), and the 
Federal Facility Agreement between the Department of Energy, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the South Carolina 
Department of Health and Environmental Control. The committee 
recognizes the need for additional funds to be applied by the 
Department towards environmental management, and for complying 
with the Federal Facility Agreement, the RCRA, and the CERCLA. 
The committee is aware that additional measures may be needed 
by the Department to meet legal and regulatory obligations, 
such as workforce restructuring or other adjustments, and the 
committee fully expects the Department to make any such 
adjustments.
    The committee recommends $1,114.4 million for environmental 
management activities at the Savannah River Site, an increase 
of $30.0 million for regulatory compliance as noted above.

Tank Waste Cleanup Research and Development Program

    The budget request contained no funds for research and 
development in support of Department of Energy efforts to clean 
up radioactive waste stored in tanks at sites such as Hanford, 
Savannah River, and the Idaho National Laboratory.
    The committee directs the Department to develop a research 
and development program to support tank waste cleanup 
activities consistent with recommendations made in a National 
Research Council report entitled ``Tank Waste Retrieval, 
Processing, and On-site Disposal at Three Department of Energy 
Sites,'' published April 4, 2006. The research and development 
program would be a collaborative effort focused on development 
and deployment of needed innovative technologies for tank waste 
retrieval, treatment, closure and disposal. The program would 
aim to improve current technologies or develop new technologies 
deployable within 10 years in consideration of the timeline and 
milestones of DOE tank waste cleanup activities. The committee 
encourages competition for selection for research and 
development projects.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for 
research and development in support of the Department's tank 
waste cleanup activities.

Yucca Mountain

    The budget request contained $388.1 million for Defense 
Nuclear Waste Disposal, including $345.7 million for the Yucca 
Mountain project.
    The committee fully supports the need for a permanent deep 
geologic repository for high level radioactive waste.
    The committee recommends $388.1 million for Defense Nuclear 
Waste Disposal, the amount of the budget request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations


         Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration

    This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear 
Security Administration for fiscal year 2007, including funds 
for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation 
programs, naval reactor programs, and the Office of the 
Administrator.

              Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup

    This section would authorize funds for defense 
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2007.

                 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities

    This section would authorize funds for other defense 
activities for fiscal year 2007.

              Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

    This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear 
waste disposal for fiscal year 2007.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


  Section 3111--Plan for Transformation of National Nuclear Security 
                 Administration Nuclear Weapons Complex

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy and the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to transform the nuclear 
weapons complex so as to achieve a responsive infrastructure by 
2030. This section would also establish objectives for the plan 
and require a report to Congress.

       Section 3112--Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure 
                        Recapitalization Program

    This section would extend the Facilities and Infrastructure 
Recapitalization Program from 2011 to 2013.

 Section 3113--Utilization of Contributions to Global Threat Reduction 
                               Initiative

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
receive international funding for the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative.

 Section 3114--Utilization of Contributions to Second Line of Defense 
                                Program.

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
receive international funding for the Second Line of Defense 
Program

   Section 3115--Two-Year Extension of Authority for Appointment of 
        Certain Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Personnel

    This section would extend the authority for appointment of 
certain scientific, engineering and technical personnel.

 Section 3116--National Academy of Sciences Study of Quantification of 
 Margins and Uncertainty Methodology for Assessing and Certifying the 
            Safety and Reliability of the Nuclear Stockpile

    This section would require the National Academy of Sciences 
to conduct a study of the quantification of margins and 
uncertainty methodology used for assessing and certifying the 
safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile.

    Section 3117--Consolidation of Counterintelligence Programs of 
   Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration

    This section would consolidate the counterintelligence 
programs of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear 
Security Administration under the Department of Energy.

          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $22.3 million for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2007. The 
committee recommends $22.3 million, the amount of the budget 
request.

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST


          Role of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

    The committee relies heavily on the technical expertise of 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (the Board) to 
ensure that appropriate nuclear safety features are 
incorporated in the design and construction of defense nuclear 
facilities. Consistent with their oversight role, recent 
recommendations made by the Board have had significant impacts 
on fundamental engineering design aspects of two nuclear waste 
treatment facilities, the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 
Plant at the Hanford Site and the Salt Waste Processing 
Facility at the Savannah River Site. The committee is also 
aware of the Board's recently expressed concern with aspects of 
the design of the proposed Bulk Vitrification Demonstration 
System at the Hanford Site.
    According to the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1989 (PL 100-456), the Board is authorized to make 
recommendations but the Board has no authority to direct action 
by the Department of Energy. Furthermore, an action of the 
Board or a failure to act may not delay or prevent the 
Secretary of Energy from carrying out the construction of a 
defense nuclear facility. The committee encourages the Board's 
involvement in the earliest possible stages of project 
conception, including identification of design requirements, to 
enable early identification of potential safety issues and to 
avoid incurring unnecessary costs and schedule slips. The 
committee expects full cooperation with the Board from the 
Secretary, the Department of Energy, contractors, and any other 
involved parties to ensure that the Board is able to serve in 
its advisory capacity. The committee also encourages the Board, 
in addition to identification of problems, to take a 
constructive role in the problem-solving process by quickly 
evaluating proposed corrective actions by the Department or 
project contractors.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                      Section 3201--Authorization

    This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2007.

                TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                Sale of Strategic and Critical Materials

    The National Defense Stockpile (NDS) operates under 
authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling 
Act (50 U.S.C. 98, et seq.). The Act mandates the maintenance 
of a stockpile of strategic and critical materials to decrease, 
and preclude, when possible, dependence upon foreign sources 
for supplies in times of national emergency. The Defense 
National Stockpile Center, a field activity of the Defense 
Logistics Agency, conducts the sale of strategic and critical 
materials in the NDS. Over 95 percent of the materials 
currently in the NDS have been determined to be in excess to 
the Department of Defense's (DOD) needs and are now being 
disposed. In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006, the committee noted concern with the increasing 
reliance on foreign sources of supply, particularly with 
respect to titanium, for defense programs. In addition, the 
report directed the Secretary of Defense to review DOD's 
current policy to dispose of material and determine whether the 
NDS should be re-configured to adapt to current world market 
conditions to ensure future availability of materials required 
for defense needs. The committee notes that this report was not 
delivered and again urges the Secretary to submit the report to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


   Section 3301--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds

    This section would authorize $52.1 million from the 
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation 
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal 
year 2007. This section would also permit the use of additional 
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after 
Congress receives notification.

 Section 3302--Revision of Limitations to Required Receipt Objectives 
  for Previously Authorized Disposals from National Defense Stockpiles

    This section would authorize revisions on limitations in 
asset sales contained in section 3303 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) as 
amended by section 3402(f) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), and 
section 3304(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).
    This section would also authorize revisions on limitations 
in asset sales contained in section 3305(a)(5) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), as amended by section 3305 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public 
Law 107-107).
    This section would further authorize revisions on 
limitations in asset sales contained in section 3303(a) of the 
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), as amended by section 3302 of 
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), and section 3302(a) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163).

                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize $18.8 million for fiscal year 
2007 for the operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum 
and Oil Shale Reserves.

                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST


   Fuel Assistance Payments to State and Regional Maritime Academies

    Section 3502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006, (Public Law 109-163) required the Secretary 
of Transportation to make payments on an graduated basis to the 
six state maritime academies for fuel costs for the operation 
of the academies' training vessels. Section 3502 specifically 
required the Secretary to make a payment to each school this 
upcoming fiscal year in an amount of $0.2 million. This is an 
increase of $0.1 million from the amount provided for fiscal 
year 2006. While there may not be a specific appropriation for 
this expenditure in the upcoming fiscal year, the Secretary has 
the authority to make these payments. The committee expects the 
Secretary to make these payments to maritime academies, in the 
maximum amount provided by the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006, (Public Law 109-163), as soon as the 
applicable appropriations act is signed into law. For an agency 
like the Maritime Administration, with a budget exceeding 
several hundred million dollars, a payment of this magnitude 
should not be resisted. With fuel costs at or near an all time 
high, payments by the Maritime Administration to these six 
schools, located in Massachusetts, Maine, New York, Texas, 
Michigan, and California, are critical to the continued ability 
of these schools to operate.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


   Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007

    This section would authorize a total of $164.4 million for 
fiscal year 2007, an increase of $19.5 million above the budget 
request. Of the funds authorized, $25.7 million would be for 
the disposal of obsolete vessels. Within the funds included for 
operation and training programs, the committee recommends $19.5 
million to provide for the establishment and reimbursement of 
non-emergency repairs under the provisions of section 3517 of 
the Maritime Security Act of 2003 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note), as 
amended by section 3503 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).

    Section 3502--Limitation on Transfer of Maritime Security Fleet 
                          Operating Agreements

    This section would amend section 53105(e) of the Maritime 
Security Act of 2003 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note) to prohibit the 
transfer of an operating agreement to a person that is not a 
citizen of the United States as that term is used in section 2 
of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 App. U.S.C. 802), unless the 
Secretary of Defense determines that there is no citizen under 
that section, who is interested in obtaining the operating 
agreement for a vessel that is otherwise eligible to be 
included in the maritime security program.

Section 3503--Applicability of Certain Maritime Administration Vessels 
   of Limitations on Overhaul, Repair, and Maintenance of Vessels in 
                           Foreign Shipyards

    This section would require that certain U.S. Maritime 
Administration vessels activated in support of Department of 
Defense missions (including any vessel assigned by the 
Secretary of Transportation to the Ready Reserve Force that is 
owned or acquired by the United States) be subject to section 
7310 of title 10, United States Code. Specifically, this 
section would designate those homeports that are considered 
part of the United States, define the term emergency voyage 
repair and strengthen the limitations on overhaul, repair and 
maintenance of vessels in foreign shipyards.

                Section 3504--Vessel Transfer Authority

    This section would authorize the Secretary of 
Transportation to transfer any vessels that are in the National 
Defense Reserve Fleet to another federal agency. This section 
would restore the authority of Department of Transportation to 
transfer vessels to the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Homeland Security. This authority was lost when 
the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security.

    Section 3505--United States Merchant Marine Academy Graduates: 
                     Alternate Service Requirements

    This section would exempt graduates of the U.S. Merchant 
Marine Academy, who serve on active duty in the armed forces 
for the five years following graduation, from certain 
commitment agreement requirements which were entered into upon 
admission. This section would provide that graduates who serve 
on active duty for five years need not to fulfill the reserve 
requirement or the requirement to maintain a Coast Guard 
license for six years. This section would not exempt graduates 
from any reserve obligations imposed upon them by the armed 
forces branch in which they serve on active duty.

Section 3506--United States Merchant Marine Academy Graduates: Service 
              Obligation Performance Reporting Requirement

    This section would allow the Department of Defense, the 
United States Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to verify to the Maritime 
Administration that academy graduates have in fact remained on 
active duty or continued in a ready reserve status for the 
amount of their obligation, which is currently six years. This 
section would also allow these respective agencies to identify 
graduates that are not in full compliance with their 
obligations. This section would thus allow the Maritime 
Administration to pursue an action to recover tuition for 
noncompliance with the reserve duty section.

   Section 3507--Temporary Authority to Transfer Obsolete Combatant 
                      Vessels to Navy for Disposal

    This section would require the Secretary of Transportation 
to transfer no fewer than six combatant vessels in the 
nonretention fleet of the Maritime Administration for disposal 
by scrapping to the Secretary of the Navy during fiscal year 
2007. This section is intended to accelerate the disposal of 
vessels by using the Navy Disposal Program, which has 
substantial experience in disposing of obsolete vessels in an 
environmentally sound manner.

  Section 3508--Temporary Requirement to Maintain Ready Reserve Force

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to submit to 
Congress by March 1, 2007 a report describing a five-year plan 
for maintaining the capability of the Ready Reserve Force of 
the National Defense Reserve Fleet necessary to support 
Department of Defense wartime mission and support to civil 
authorities. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Transportation to maintain 58 vessels in the Ready Reserve 
Force of the National Defense Reserve Fleet until 45 days after 
the date the report is required.

                           DEPARTMENTAL DATA

    The Department of Defense requested legislation, in 
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by 
the correspondence set out below:

              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                     Washington, DC, April 3, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 
Bill for Fiscal Year 2007.
    Included in this year's bill are a number of proposals that 
arose from the Quadrennial Defense Review Report delivered to 
the Congress in February 2006: Logistic Support of Allied 
Forces for Combines Operations; Protection of Information 
Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction; Change to Acquisition 
and Cross-Servicing Agreements Definition to Allow Loan of 
Significant Military Equipment; Amendments to Presidential 
Reserve Call-Up Authority; Threshold for Medical Facility 
Projects; Expansion of Operations of Civil Support Teams; 
Indexing TRICARE Program Cost Sharing Amounts; Establishment of 
a Health Savings Account Choice Pilot Program for Department of 
Defense Retirees and Their Families Not Eligible for Medicare.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    In the coming weeks, the Department will propose a few 
additional legislative initiatives for inclusion in the same 
bill.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                            Acting General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As Stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                     Washington, DC, April 3, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 
Bill for Fiscal Year 2007.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                            Acting General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As Stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, April 13, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 
Bill for Fiscal Year 2007.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                            Acting General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As Stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, April 27, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 
Bill for Fiscal Year 2007.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                      William J. Haynes II,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As Stated.

                           COMMITTEE POSITION

    On May 3, 2006 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 
being present, approved H.R. 5122, as amended, by a vote of 60-
1.

                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

                          House of Representatives,
                Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
                                       Washington, DC, May 1, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: I write to confirm our mutual 
understanding regarding H.R. 5122, the Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This legislation contains subject 
matter within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence. However, in order to expedite floor 
consideration of this important legislation, the Committee 
waives consideration of the bill.
    The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence takes this 
action only with the understanding that the Committee's 
jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are 
in no way diminished or altered. I also want to confirm our 
mutual agreement that the transfer of the Office of Defense 
Nuclear Counterintelligence of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration in no way impairs or affects the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence's jurisdiction over 
intelligence activities of National Intelligence Program 
components of the Department of Energy, including those carried 
out by this office.
    The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests 
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would 
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 
Record during consideration of H.R. 5122 on the House Floor. 
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
            Sincerely,
                                            Peter Hoekstra,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 1, 2006.
Hon. Peter Hoekstra,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in 
the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
Committee report on the bill.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: H.R. 5122, the ``National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,'' contains provisions 
that implicate the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Judiciary. However, in recognition of the desire to expedite 
consideration of this legislation, the Committee hereby waives 
consideration of the bill.
    The Committee on Judiciary takes this action with the 
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5122, the 
Committee does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter 
contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also 
reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate 
conference on this legislation and requests your support if a 
request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your inclusion of 
this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
H.R. 5122 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to 
these matters.
            Sincerely,
                               F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request such a referral in the interest of expediting 
consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not 
waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
will be included in the Committee report on the bill.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: I understand that the Committee on 
Armed Services is considering adding language to the fiscal 
year 2007 Department of Defense Authorization Act which would 
affect the management of elk and deer in the Channel Islands 
National Park, as well as the park ecosystem. This national 
park is a popular designation for recreation, including hunting 
for disabled veterans.
    Like you, I strongly support recreational activities for 
disabled veterans and other Americans on our public lands. 
While your proposed language may raise issues regarding 
ecosystem health, recreational access and private property 
rights, I will not delay House consideration of the 2007 
Department of Defense authorization bill in a time of war by 
requesting a referral.
            Sincerely,
                                          Richard W. Pombo,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: Congratulations on your successful 
mark-up of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007. You should be commended for your 
leadership in marshaling this important legislation through 
your committee.
    I have reviewed the provisions that are within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources, including the pay 
raises for uniformed services as it relates to the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps.
    Because of the longstanding history of this provision, I 
will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 5122 based on their 
inclusion in the bill. Of course, this waiver does not 
prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these 
provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to 
seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on 
these provisions, should a conference on H.R. 5122 or a similar 
measure become necessary.
    Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and 
your staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 5122 enacted soon.
            Sincerely,
                                          Richard W. Pombo,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letters regarding 
H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007. I agree that the Committee on Resources has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request such a referral in the interest of expediting 
consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
sequential referral, the Committee on Resources is not waiving 
its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
included in the Committee report on the bill.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters 
being considered in H.R. 5122, the ``National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.'' I appreciate you 
working with me in your development of H.R 5122, particularly 
with respect to Section 911, Designation of Successor 
Organization for the Disestablished Interagency Global 
Positioning Executive Board.
    The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R. 
5122 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
Section 911 and other provisions of the bill, I agree not to 
request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional 
on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or 
my decision to forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces or 
otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, 
and that a copy of this letter and of your response will be 
included in the Committee report and in the Congressional 
Record when the bill is considered on the House Floor.
    The Science Committee also expects that you will support 
our request to be conferees on any provision over which we have 
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this 
legislation.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                         Sherwood Boehlert,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007. I agree that the Committee on Science has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request such a referral in the interest of expediting 
consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
sequential referral, the Committee on Science is not waiving 
its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
included in the Committee report on the bill.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.
                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5122 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do 
not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, 
is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral 
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of 
this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional 
interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part 
of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 
by the House.
    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Don Young,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in 
the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its 
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
included in the Committee report on the bill.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.
                          House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
understanding with regard to the consideration of H.R. 5122, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007.'' Thank you for working with me in your development of 
this bill specifically: Sec. 571--Continuation of Authority to 
Assist Local Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of 
Members of Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian 
Employees; and Sec. 572--Enrollment in Defense Dependents' 
Education System of Dependents of Foreign and Civilian Members 
Assigned to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE).
    As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. While I do not 
intend to seek sequential referral of H.R. 5122, the Committee 
does hold an interest in preserving its future jurisdiction 
with respect to issue raised in the aforementioned provisions 
and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of 
this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a 
conference with the Senate. We would expect to be appointed as 
conferees on these provisions should a conference with the 
Senate arise.
    Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
exchange of letters in the Committee Report on H.R. 5122. If 
you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not 
hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
                                          Howard P. McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Howard P. McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007. I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
decision not to request such a referral in the interest of 
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing 
a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on 
the bill.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on International Relations,
                                       Washington, DC, May 5, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Hunter: I am writing to you concerning the 
bill H.R. 5122, The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007. There are certain provisions in the 
legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
Committee on International Relations.
    In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed 
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I 
am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential 
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
consideration of the bill the Committee on International 
Relations does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over 
the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its 
Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you to urge the Speaker to 
name Members of this Committee to any conference committee 
which is named to consider any such provisions.
    Please place this letter into the Committee report on H.R. 
5122 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of 
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative 
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and 
others between our respective committees.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Henry J. Hyde,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 5, 2006.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007. I agree that the Committee on International Relations has 
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
decision not to request such a referral in the interest of 
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing 
a sequential referral, the Committee on International Relations 
is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of 
letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill.
    With best wishes.
            Sincerely,
                                             Duncan Hunter,
                                                          Chairman.

                              FISCAL DATA

    Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain 
annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2006 
and each of the following five fiscal years. The results of 
such efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate, 
which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House 
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:

          Congressional Budget Office Mandatory Cost Estimate

                                                       May 5, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed table showing a preliminary estimate of 
the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 5122, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, as 
approved by the Committee on Armed Services on May 3, 2006. 
CBO's complete cost estimate for H.R. 5122, including the 
discretionary costs of the bill, will be provided shortly.
    H.R. 5122 would affect direct spending for several defense 
programs, such as death gratuity benefits, the TRICARE pharmacy 
program, the acquisition of military facilities, and the sale 
of assets from the National Defense Stockpile. Enacting the 
bill also would affect federal revenues, beginning in 2010.
    Based on the legislative language for H.R. 5122 that was 
provided to CBO on May 5, 2006, CBO estimates that enacting 
this bill would increase direct spending by $12 million in 
2007, reduce direct spending by $10 million over the 2007-2011 
period, and increase direct spending by $1 million over the 
2007-2016 period. We estimate that enacting the bill would 
reduce revenues by $3 million over the 2010-2011 period and by 
$21 million over the 2010-2016 period. For the purposes of this 
estimate, we assume that H.R. 5122 will be enacted early in 
fiscal year 2007.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
happy to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kent 
Christensen, who can be reached at 226-2840.
            Sincerely,
                                          Donald B. Marron,
                                                   Acting Director.
    Enclosure.
    
    
                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with 
the mandatory estimate as contained in the report of the 
Congressional Budget Office.

                           OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from 
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the 
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are 
reflected in the body of this report.
    With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not 
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it 
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or 
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations. 
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the 
estimate prepared by the committee under clause 3(d)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    With respect to clause 3(2) of rule XII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, this legislation would address 
several general and outcome-related performance goals and 
objectives. The general goal and objective of this legislation 
is to improve the quality of life for America's most valuable 
assets--our military personnel and their families, prioritizes 
authorizations for immediate equipment needs to support troops 
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, provides for military 
readiness and the modernization of the armed forces.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the 
quality of life for military personnel and their families, the 
objective of this legislation is to:
          (1) Provide a 2.7 percent across-the-board pay raise 
        for our men and women in uniform. The raise would 
        decrease the gap between military and private sector 
        pay from 4.5 to 4 percent;
          (2) Address manpower needs with an increase of 30,000 
        personnel in the Army and 5,000 in the Marine Corps in 
        2007. This would bring the Army end strength to 512,400 
        and the Marine Corps to 180,000. The legislation also 
        supports an end strength of 350,000 personnel for the 
        Army National Guard and increases the full-time support 
        personnel by nearly 2,300.
          (3) Completes the transition to TRICARE for members 
        of the Selected Reserves.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of prioritizes 
authorizations for immediate equipment needs to support troops 
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the objective of this 
legislation is to:
          (1) $50 billion in emergency supplemental 
        authorization for operation and maintenance, military 
        personnel, and procurement in support of troops 
        fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan including funding for 
        force protection requirements such advanced body armor; 
        and armored vehicles;
          (2) Provide more than $200 million for a new take 
        back the roads initiative, which consists of $109.7 
        million for new radio signal jamming devices to prevent 
        the radio initiation of roadside bombs and $100 million 
        for manned persistent surveillance aircraft to patrol 
        road segments.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of military 
readiness, the objective of this legislation is to:
          (1) Fully fund operation and maintenance costs for 
        the military services, including ship operations, depot 
        maintenance, flying hours, prepositioned stocks, and 
        other training requirements, as the Global War on 
        Terrorism enters its fifth year.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of modernization 
and the eventual transformation of the armed forces, the 
objective of this legislation is to:
          (1) Provide priority for meeting the requirements of 
        the current force in reset, recapitalization, and 
        modernization while advancing the need to transform the 
        armed forces to be an effective fighting force for 
        tomorrow.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3 (d)(1) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States 
Constitution.

                     STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

    Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this 
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, 
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private 
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal 
intergovernmental mandates.

                              RECORD VOTES

    In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken 
with respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 5122. The 
record of these votes is attached to this report.
    The committee ordered H.R. 5122 reported to the House with 
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 61-1, a quorum being 
present.


         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    The committee intends to take steps to make available the 
analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as 
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    While we are supportive of H.R. 5122 and some of its 
significant efforts to help our men and women in uniform, we 
also are disappointed that the majority on the committee chose 
not to support an amendment by Mr. Skelton that would have 
reduced the pharmacy cost shares for our military personnel and 
their families from those proposed in the mark. While the 
pharmacy proposal included in the mark was a good faith effort 
to ensure a robust prescription benefit for military families, 
the rejected amendment would have retained the current, lower 
pharmacy cost shares.
    As it currently stands, military beneficiaries who purchase 
their drugs through a retail pharmacy currently pay $3 for 
generic drugs and $9 for brand name pharmaceuticals. The mark 
would raise those prices to $6 and $16, respectively. While 
this may not sound like much to most people, for a junior 
enlisted family who is living on a limited income, the proposed 
increase may be distressing. Take for example a family with 
several children. Often times, when one child gets sick, so do 
the others. So imagine a military family that has to go to the 
pharmacy and pick up several prescriptions. It does not take 
long before that increased $16 co-pay becomes a significant 
dent in that family's monthly income.
    In addition, the current proposal unfairly penalizes those 
who will not be able to get their drugs through mail order. For 
example, if a child is suffering from an acute infection and 
needs antibiotics, that child's parents are not going to wait 
days for the medicine to arrive through mail order. It is 
neither practical nor realistic.
    We find it difficult to understand why such a burden would 
be placed on our military families during a time of war. 
Military families already face uncertainty and stress from 
having a loved one deployed. Given the high tempo of 
deployments, with the attendant financial burdens, we must do 
everything we can to support military families. The increasing 
drug costs of drugs should not be an additional worry. As we 
know too well, we recruit an individual, we retain a family.
    We should not be placing the burden of higher health care 
costs within the Department of Defense upon the backs of our 
military personnel and their families. It is premature to 
increase the pharmacy cost shares until we have had an 
opportunity to review the entire spectrum of health care costs 
and develop a comprehensive plan to address the growing health 
care costs of the Department. We are disappointed that the 
majority failed to recognize these concerns and to adopt the 
Skelton amendment.
    We are also disappointed that the committee failed to adopt 
the Israel amendment to perfect Section 590 which addresses a 
military chaplain's prerogative to ``pray according to the 
dictates of the chaplain's own conscience, except as must be 
limited by military necessity. . .'' Mr. Israel's amendment 
sought to clarify that chaplains ``shall demonstrate 
sensitivity, respect and tolerance for all faiths present on 
each occasion at which prayers are offered''. We believe this 
language should have been accepted.
    The underlying provision shifts the emphasis from the 
rights and needs of the service member to those of the 
chaplain. Military chaplains occupy a unique role in the Armed 
Forces. As commissioned officers they are representatives of 
the government and thus must not be perceived to violate the 
``establishment'' clause of the Constitution, nor impinge on 
the free exercise of religion by members of the Armed Forces. 
Military chaplains must often minister to those of their own 
faith, but are also called upon to the support the activities 
of service members and their families who come from many 
diverse religious beliefs and backgrounds.
    We must recognize the context of this provision. The 
military services, and in particular the Air Force Academy, 
have recently encountered problems with respect to religious 
tolerance. The documented problem was not the restriction of 
the chaplains' ability to practice their faith, but the belief 
by cadets of the lack of sensitivity, respect and tolerance of 
other faiths by fellow cadets, chaplains, and senior officers. 
As a result the Air Force reviewed its policies and practices 
and reemphasized the purpose of the chaplaincy and the issue of 
command responsibility.
    This is why the chaplaincy programs are commanders' 
programs. Commanders have a responsibility to provide 
comprehensive religious support to all individuals. This 
command responsibility models positive, ethical leadership and 
provides an example of this nation's rich heritage of strength 
through diversity.
    This is a critical moment in our history. We should be 
cautious in proceeding to legislate in this area. We must 
recognize the reason for the existence of the military 
chaplaincy and the religious diversity of our military 
personnel who are currently engaged in fighting overseas to 
establish and preserve democracy and tolerance. The majority 
should not only be protecting the rights of chaplains to pray 
according to their conscience. They should also be promoting 
efforts to ensure respect and tolerance for the very people 
chaplains have taken an oath to serve--our service members.
    We are concerned that the committee is sending the wrong 
signals to our men and women in uniform who have volunteered to 
serve their nation. Our responsibility is to ensure that we 
support them every step of the way.
                                   Ike Skelton.
                                   Steve Israel.
                                   Solomon P. Ortiz.
                                   Ellen O. Tauscher.
                                   Adam Smith.
                                   G.K. Butterfield.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Silvestre Reyes.
                                   John Spratt.
                                   Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
                                   Robert E. Andrews.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Neil Abercrombie.
                                   Marty Meehan.
                                   Jim Langevin.
                                   Susan Davis.
                                   Vic Snyder.
                                   Tim Ryan.
                                   Rick Larsen.
                                   Jim Marshall.

               ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JEFF MILLER OF FLORIDA

    I strongly support Chairman Hunter's language concerning 
the Active Carrier Force Structure and look forward to the 
Secretary of Defense's report, due March 1, 2007. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 set a minimum 
carrier force structure of not less than 12 operational 
aircraft carriers and any possible changes to the law need to 
be carefully considered. Furthermore, it is important that the 
Secretary of the Defense and the Navy fully explain the 
potential national security impact of reducing the carrier 
force to 11 operational aircraft in the classified annex 
directed by Chairman Hunter.
    The Chairman's mark also includes language desiring the 
Secretary of Defense to explore options for maintaining the USS 
John F. Kennedy either within or outside the U.S. Navy. 
Exploring these possibilities is important and I strongly 
encourage the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Navy to include 
in their report to the defense committees a section addressing 
the possibility of the USS John F. Kennedy being maintained in 
a reduced operating status as a permanent naval aviation 
training platform.
                                                       Jeff Miller.

                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REP. JIM MARSHALL

    I submit additional views on two issues, the Committee's 
decision to remove the current restraints upon the ability of 
the Air Force to retire C-5A transport aircraft and the Air 
Force effort to centralize personnel services as it affects the 
large civilian work centers (``LCCs'' which include Wright-
Patterson, Robins, Tinker, Hill and Bolling Air Force Bases).
    The Committee's bill removes the current prohibition upon 
retirement of C-5A aircraft. By this action, the Committee does 
not intend to recommend or encourage the retirement of C-5As. 
The Air Force's 2001 C-5 upgrades Report to Congress, which 
included the Institute for Defense Analysis's C-5 Modernization 
Study, clearly shows that modernizing the entire C-5 fleet is 
an essential component of any cost-effective strategy to meet 
future airlift needs. With modernization, the availability and 
capability statistics for C-5A and B aircraft should fall 
within five percentage points of the newer C-17 platform.
    The Committee's bill requires a minimum airlift fleet of 
299. By this action, the Committee indicates its belief that 
the recently published Air Mobility Study (AMS) underestimated 
future airlift needs. The AMS totals assume certain 
specifically listed future contingencies. These won't all come 
true. In addition, the AMS recommends additional studies be 
conducted, including a review of intra-theatre use of the C-17. 
Yet another study is not needed to conclude the obvious: 
Central Command's intra-theatre use of the C-17 far exceeds the 
levels assumed in the AMS. The 299 figure set in the Committee 
bill is truly a minimum. That figure will increase in future 
years. More C-17s are needed.
    Pursuant to a 1993 DoD directive, the Air Force has sought, 
with varying levels of enthusiasm, to centralize personnel 
services in one location, largely removing them from the on-
site control of the base commander. Unlike most AF 
instillations, the success of the mission at its large civilian 
work centers (Wright-Patterson, Robins, Tinker, Hill and 
Bolling AFBs, the ``LCCs'') depends upon a complicated civilian 
workforce numbering in the tens of thousands with hundreds of 
job classifications. So AF rightly delayed removing major 
personnel functions from the LCCs, centralizing only those 
personnel services that might easily be provided by email or 
telephone (e.g. some IT support, responding to routine employee 
inquiries about benefits, etc.).
    Aware that Air Force was balking, DoD sought to use the 
recent BRAC process to advance total centralization of the Air 
Force personnel functions. But the BRAC Commissioners rejected 
DoD's proposed BRAC language on this subject. Instead, for the 
LCCs, the Commissioners directed that each LCC ``retain 
sufficient positions and personnel to perform the personnel 
management advisory services, the non-transactional functions, 
necessary to support . . . the civilian workforce.'' For each 
LCC, the Commissioners directed that only the ``transactional 
functions of the Civilian Personnel Office'' would be moved to 
Randolph AFB, the currently planned site for centralization.
    There exists uncertainty within the Air Force concerning 
the proper interpretation of the BRAC Commissioners' directive 
with regard to these five AFBs. By focusing upon the terms 
``transactional'' and ``non-transactional,'' I, along with Mr. 
Cole (OK), Mr. Bishop (UT), and Mr. Turner (OH) proposed an 
amendment to guide the Air Force as it complies with the BRAC 
language. As such, our amendment furthered the BRAC 
Commissioners' goal of assuring that these five AFBs ``retain 
sufficient positions and personnel to perform the personnel 
management advisory services . . . necessary to support . . . 
the civilian workforce,'' a goal that is vitally important to 
mission performance at each LCC.
    We withdrew our proposed amendment after receiving 
assurances from the Air Force staff that no substantial 
reorganization would be implemented before the 2008 
authorization bill process and that the Air staff would work 
with us, AFMC and the LCC Commanders to assure that any 
reorganization will improve the cost/quality bottom line at the 
LCCs. This understanding is evidenced by an email exchange May 
1-3, 2006, between myself and the Honorable Michael Dominguez, 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve 
Affairs. Copies of these e-mails are available from the 
committee's records or my office. What follows is the first e-
mail.

Honorable Michael Dominguez,
Asst. Sec. AF for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
    Mr. Secretary: Thanks so much for the time you gave me by 
telephone Friday afternoon. I am very much in agreement with 
your summary of how the Air Force should proceed with CPO 
reorganization for the large civilian work centers (``LCC's''). 
Your suggested policy directive is both timely and needed. And 
it will be very well received by AFMC military and civilian 
leadership if it heads things in the direction you summarized, 
assuming I got your thoughts straight.
    What follows is what I understood you to say. Please 
correct me if I am mistaken.
          (1) This reorganization is intended to improve, not 
        diminish, the quality of personnel management services 
        for the LCC's.
          (2) To further this intent, AFPC will agree with 
        AFMC, its customer, concerning verifiable service 
        delivery standards to be met by AFPC.
          (3) Before removing additional AFMC personnel 
        functions or slots, AFPC will demonstrate by its actual 
        performance rendered to others that it can and will 
        meet the agreed upon service delivery standards to the 
        satisfaction of AFMC.
    As you know, I met this morning in my office with LTG Brady 
and Mr. Blanchard. I appreciate the time they gave me as well, 
and I am providing them with a copy of this email for their 
review and comment. We discussed the above three points along 
with a host of other things. I understood LTG Brady to say the 
above three steps were ``quite reasonable,'' again assuming I 
have fairly summarized them.
    I frankly think point one is easy to say but will be 
difficult to deliver. So items (2) and (3) are very critical. 
Obviously the LCC's must cooperate in setting fair and 
reasonable standards and in evaluating AFPC performance. They 
cannot be permitted to use the agreement contemplated in (2) or 
the evaluation in (3) to simply undermine all attempts at 
change. Overcoming the natural tendency of LCC bureaucracies to 
defend their existence and resist change will take leadership 
from their Commanders with, perhaps, COS guidance.
    That very inertia and resistance to change, however, is why 
item (3) is essential. The LCC's should not be used for 
personnel management experiments. Once LCC slots and functions 
are moved, they are unlikely to be recovered even if AFPC is 
falling shortof the agreed upon performance standards. AFPC is 
no exception to the rule that bureaucracies defend themselves with the 
benefit of inertia.
    Like you, for several reasons, I and my Congressional 
colleagues prefer to avoid imposing legislative language to 
mandate what should simply be internal policy for the Air 
Force. If my above-described understanding of your intention is 
correct, then I will recommend to my colleagues that we hold 
off on any legislation while we see how this develops over the 
next year.
    So, could you let me know as soon as possible (preferably 
today) whether you think my brief summary here is an accurate 
description of how the Air Force will proceed? I think it 
helpful for me to also share this with Gen. Carlson so he can 
follow (and join if he chooses) our discussion.
            Very truly yours,
                                                      Jim Marshall.
                                ------                                

    Secretary Dominguez responded by an e-mail saying, ``Thank 
you for your email. I think you have captured our discussion 
quite accurately. I would like to elaborate somewhat, if I 
might.'' In his elaboration concerning item #2, Secretary 
Dominguez included a couple of ``elaborating'' sentences that 
prompted this e-mail reply from me.
    Mr. Secretary: One good turn deserves another. May I 
``elaborate'' on two sentences of your elaboration regarding 
item (2)?
    Those sentences are: These, of necessity, will be Air 
Force-wide service level agreements--the same for every command 
and every Airman everywhere. It would be an unreasonable burden 
on AFPC, and unacceptable to AF Commanders, to have different 
product quality standards at different Air Bases. You and I 
discussed these sentences by telephone this afternoon. In part, 
I draw my comments from our conversation.
    Missions and activities have different levels of value and 
importance. Some are critical. Some are not. For example, a 
brief interruption of IT service for one activity (landing 
aircraft?) might cause grave problems while elimination of IT 
service altogether for another (scheduling lawn service?) might 
be no big deal. Besides such differences in criticality, the 
cost or practicality of delivering services will vary for 
different missions and activities. I mostly ate c-rations as an 
infantryman in the bush in Vietnam while those in the rear had 
cafeteria food. I understood why. Feeding me and my fellow 
grunts was probably a more critical service. (We thought so.) 
But the cafeteria service standard wasn't practical or cost 
effective. (So we just grumbled and dissed REM*s.)
    So as we discussed, you and AFPC intend that service levels 
meet or exceed the needs of the individual installations and 
missions being supported. It is laudable but typically 
impractical and wasteful to try to accomplish this by providing 
the highest level of service for all. But if there is to be 
just one level of service provided AF wide to all commanders 
and bases, then it must be the highest level or AFPC will have 
failed those installations and missions with the most sensitive 
or critical needs. So AFPCs service delivery targets will have 
to vary among installations and missions. There is no other 
practical, cost effective alternative. AF Commanders worthy of 
the title both accept and understand that. In all walks of 
life--business, government, education, even pastoring--uniform 
provision of services is the exception, not the rule.
    By postponing centralization of the Civilian Personnel 
Offices of the AF large civilian work centers (``LCCs''--
Bolling, Hill, Robins, Tinker and Wright Pat), AF has already 
treated them differently from other commands. The BRAC 
Commissioners also singled out the LCCs for special treatment, 
and their policy directive is now the law of the land.
    My concern is that AFPC has not sufficiently internalized 
that fact. The LCCs are different. Their missions are civilian 
driven. Productivity of their civilian workforce is critical. 
The BRAC Commissioners have made that clear. I appreciate your 
sensible approach to the task of reorganizing, streamlining and 
improving AF personnel management services. The LCCs will have 
to be given special treatment, as they already have, in this 
process.
    I also appreciate your observation that the LCC Commanders 
organize their workforce to assure the best cost for a quality 
product and that AFPC can and will do nothing to upset this 
since doing so would cause POM reverberations and budget 
challenges throughout the AF. But LCC Commanders can only 
demonstrate direct quantitative connections to productivity for 
a few of the personnel functions that, in part or whole, might 
be proposed for centralization. Speed filling vacancies is one 
of these. For others, frankly, it is a judgment call to what 
extent the particular personnel function affects productivity.
    On these judgment calls, I believe AF should defer to the 
LCC Commanders. They are equally interested in the bottom line 
and do not have a dog in the fight over what is the appropriate 
personnel service delivery concept. Cost for quality is their 
bottom line just as it is AFPCs and the AF. Although others may 
have greater experience specifically with personnel delivery 
systems, the LCC Commanders have identical cost for quality 
motivations and a better perspective for how to get this done 
at the LCCs. They should be treated like the traditional 
corporate customer in a large conglomerate--offered, but not 
compelled to accept, different ideas for how to improve their 
cost/quality bottom line.
    Enough said about all that. I appreciate your final 
observation that only the COS, SecAF or some higher authority 
could force the AFMC Commander to accept a given AFPC proposal 
for service delivery to the LCCs.
            Very truly yours,
                                                      Jim Marshall.

            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSWOMAN CATHY MCMORRIS

    Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank you 
and Ranking Member Skelton for your hard work in crafting H.R. 
5122, the FY 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. We can be 
proud of this bill that reinforces the strong commitment we 
have made to our troops. This bill also proposes critical 
expansions to TRICARE pharmacy plans while still maintaining 
fiscal responsibility.
    Providing quality and affordable health care for our 
service men and women is a crucial element of the task that we 
have as a Committee and a Congress in return for the sacrifice 
of all who served our country. I know that members of this 
committee join me in the continued fight to protect programs 
like TRICARE. H.R. 5122 strengthened TRICARE by zeroing out 
generic and formulary prescriptions for participants in the 
TRICARE pharmacy mail-order program. The Committee also 
maintains its commitment to serving our military personnel by 
adding $735 million to restore DoD cuts to the Defense Health 
Program.
    The Chairman's mark also demonstrates unwavering support of 
our men and women actively serving our country around the 
world. It is important that we provide our troops with state-
of-the-art equipment and technology to enable them to win the 
war on terror. We have increased by $930 million our investment 
in rapid production of enhanced body armor including Small Arms 
Protective Inserts that have guarded the lives of numerous 
soldiers and Marines from IED blasts. The bill also adds $635.5 
million for the purchase of up-armor Humvees to equip our 
troops to meet new threats.
    As the National Guard has been called on to play an 
unprecedented role in the Global War on Terror, we have 
responded by giving the Guard greater resources. This bill 
supports the decision by the Army Secretary and Chief of Staff 
to request an Army National Guard end strength of 350,000. In 
addition, H.R. 5122 would increase Army National Guard full-
time support personnel by nearly 2,300. To support the 
additional manpower, H.R. 5122 would increase Army National 
Guard funding by $471 million.
    On April 21, 2004, the 92nd Air Refueling Wing, from 
Fairchild Air Force Base in Eastern Washington, delivered the 
one billionth gallon of fuel in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 
Colonel Scott Hanson and 130 fellow airmen from Fairchild will 
be returning from a four-month deployment later this month, and 
we will be glad to have them back.
    I applaud the Committee for moving forward with the process 
of replacing the aging KC-135 fleet by allowing the conditional 
retirement of 29 E models, many of which this Committee learned 
earlier this year, have been grounded for safety reasons. 
Thanks to the air supremacy made possible by these gas stations 
in the sky, our country has not lost an Army ground soldier to 
enemy aircraft since 1953. This will allow continued 
transformation of our military to meet new challenges that 
threaten our country with the tools they need.
    The task of the Chairman has not been an easy one, working 
within an ever-decreasing top-line and balancing many 
indispensable priorities. I thank the Chairman for his efforts 
and express my strong support for this bill.
                                                    Cathy McMorris.

         DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY

    President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``To announce that there 
must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand 
by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and 
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.''
    As I have in the past, I raise my voice to dissent to the 
annual Defense Authorization Acts that are proposed by this 
House Armed Services Committee, in this case for FY07. War 
never truly creates peace, but always leads to more war. This 
endless cycle of violence wastes human potential, makes a 
priority of funding military expansion, weapons and wars over 
the increasingly critical needs created by lack of education, 
illness, poverty, and the endangered environment.
    As we enter a fourth year of war in Iraq, and a fifth year 
in Afghanistan, and with projections from the Vice President of 
``a war that won't end in our lifetime,'' our military budget 
continues to grow to unprecedented levels along with the 
deficits it is creating. We now have a larger and more lethal 
military force, and a more expanded intelligence budget and 
consolidation than we did at the height of the Cold War, when 
we faced the perceived threat of a continent armed with nuclear 
weapons and said to desire expansion across the globe into many 
countries and regions. That threat has ended, but the threat of 
unconsolidated and ill-equipped terrorist groups has been used 
to expand the funding of huge corporate contracts for weapons 
and war while denying the human suffering and needs that face 
us. The solution of the latter has more potential to make us 
safe and secure and to spread democracy and good will to the 
world than any budget this Committee has approved or even 
considered in recent years.
    According to Pentagon figures, we are spending $9 billion a 
month to wage the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. That comes to 
$300 million a day, $12.5 million an hour, over $200,000 a 
minute, and $3,500 a second.
    Can you imagine the effect on our country and the world if 
we had begun a program after 9/11 to grant $200,000 each minute 
until the present to a worthy community need or program, simple 
technology and medical assistance in communities abroad, local 
alternative energy technology, environmental protection, 
countering poverty one city at a time, or encouraging cross-
cultural communication and travel around the globe?
    And at the same time it would have de-funded the tens of 
thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as 
thousands of U.S. soldiers whose lives are already lost to 
these wars, stopped the destruction of infrastructure and 
environment in those countries where depleted uranium weapons 
alone continue to cause high levels of birth deformations and 
make our own troops ill. Funding would have been cut for 
repressive regimes that carry out regular violations of human 
rights abuses and support paramilitary activity and for 
privatized forces that brutalize and kill any popular dissent 
against corporate agendas or government excess.
    In my district outside Atlanta, Georgia, the median family 
paid $2,000 in federal taxes, and $570 went to the military 
budget and war. That means 29 cents out of every dollar. This 
reflects a 70% increase in military costs since 2000, and a 20% 
rise in its share of the tax dollar. Just think what that 
amount would mean to each family in my district annually, or to 
social programs that could assist them at the federal level.
    And the coffers of those who profit from war would not 
contain the windfall they have gotten from flawed weapon 
systems and unaccountable contract management. They would not 
have been used to create programs of pre-emptive strike and 
intervention that have soured our relations with long-time 
international allies and the United Nations. Most importantly, 
these funds would not have been spent making us thousands of 
new enemies in countries where the majority were our friends, 
and whose outpouring of sympathy after the 9/11 attacks has 
been squandered. Just imagine.
    The wars and military operations we are funding through 
this Defense Authorization Act are based on a simple Use of 
Force authorization passed by this Congress in October of 2001, 
which was to have been linked to the provisions of the War 
Powers Act of 1973. However, no regular review of that 
authorization has taken place, and it has been cited by the 
President to justify pre-emptive war, creation of a dual legal 
system and military tribunals, imprisoned ``enemy combatants,'' 
without due process rights, abandonment of the Geneva Accords 
and UN principles relating to war, extralegal secret renditions 
and prisons abroad, torture and illegal methods of 
interrogation, expanded secrecy and attacks on civil liberties 
at home.
    The funds authorized by this bill apparently also cover an 
expanding number of covert wars abroad, with the secret but 
increasing use of Special Operations Command teams sent into 20 
countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America on 
missions that do not even seek approval by the U.S. Ambassador 
in those countries. The SOC budget has increased by 60% since 
2003, to $8 billion, using 13,000 special forces to carry out 
100-page operation plans developed over the last three years to 
fight those they identify as terrorists abroad under military 
regional commands. These include post-attack plans if 
terrorists strike within the U.S. again, when the military will 
``take the gloves off.''
    Domestically, the role and use of the military have been 
changing as well. The increased use in the last decade of 
reserve troops abroad not only created severe financial 
hardships for their family members, but also left communities 
in Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas short on 
state National Guard troops to respond to hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita. Militarization of the society as a whole is 
increasing, invading privacy with Pentagon surveillance and 
recruiter access to personal records of students.
    There are repeated calls to abandon the principle of Posse 
Comitatus, the bright line between police and military 
functions. During the recent panic over the possibility of the 
Asian Bird Flu becoming a human pandemic, President Bush began 
to call for use of U.S. military forces to set up and enforce 
quarantines and establish martial law in response. Privatized 
security forces, paid for by the Pentagon have not only built 
bases and been used in combat zones abroad, but Blackwater and 
DynCorp provided ``security'' in Louisiana after Katrina during 
crisis conditions, and Halliburton is being paid to build 
containment centers for large numbers of immigrants under 
FEMA's End Game plan for a national round-up of undocumented 
workers.
    While this $512.9 billion bill may have enjoyed broad 
support in the Committee, the policy it implements faces 
eroding support around the country and the world. Current news 
reports find that 62% of survey respondents in this country 
disapprove of Bush's approach to the war on Iraq and that 15% 
believe that the U.S. is very likely to have success in Iraq; 
whatever success is supposed to look like. The majority 
sentiment amongthe people of the United States and a growing 
sentiment inside this Congress want to end these wars on Iraq and 
Afghanistan and bring the troops home. To date, over one million 
reserve and National Guard forces have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan 
in these wars, and the majority have passed the maximum involuntary 
service limit of two years, yet the war is not scheduled to end before 
2009 at the end of the President's period in office. I supported Rep. 
Murtha's bill to redeploy US forces outside Iraq, and the unopposed 
amendment offered to the Supplemental funding by Barbara Lee that no 
funds be expended on the building of permanent bases in Iraq, and would 
have made those amendments to this bill save that other Committees of 
the House may require sequential referrals.
    High-ranking retired officers from several branches are now 
beginning to speak out about the flawed assumptions and 
prosecution of this war by Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld, and have called for his resignation.
    It is time for these wars to end and for alternative 
military budgets that reduce the waste and wasted spending on 
flawed weapons systems to be produced by this Committee. Sadly, 
the flawed spending contained in this bill has marked Pentagon 
spending since its inception, but more so in this 
administration than ever before. Our current military budget is 
larger than the budgets of every other major country in the 
world combined, both allies and perceived enemies. Our obsolete 
nuclear arsenal and other weapons systems are maintained and 
defended while new systems with no legitimate utility are 
designed and promoted each year. Sadly, this Committee approves 
them.
    This Committee consistently fails to address the pressing 
and simple issues of those it claims to represent and to serve, 
the American people and our people in uniform. Unchecked 
fraudulent recruitment, failed retention, violation of rights 
and regulations, stop-loss policies and over-rotation, lack of 
adequate protection for combat troops, protection of rights of 
conscience, diminished medical care for troops and their 
families, decreases in veterans benefits, environmental damage 
done by the manufacture, storage and use of military weapons, 
falsified benefits and bonuses, and privatization of functions 
all remain inadequately addressed by the passage of this bill, 
and in some cases they are worsened.
    This is a military that relies on economic conscription or 
a Poverty Draft to fill its ranks, and the primary focus of 
recruiters is in poor communities of color. The new White House 
press secretary, Tony Snow, recently broadcast his opinion that 
those who ``have committed themselves to a view that blacks are 
constantly victims, have succeeded in creating in the United 
States the most dangerous thing that we've encountered in our 
lifetime; which is an underclass that doesn't seem to be going 
anywhere.'' For those who blame Black people and the poor for 
their own problems, pushing them into the military and war is 
no solution, either.
    Despite the attachment of psychiatric support teams on the 
field to every combat unit, nearly 30% of veterans of current 
wars will suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and many 
will bring the violence of war home. Rep. Murtha said recently 
that would mean 50,000 PTSD veteran cases, with a VA not yet 
equipped to handle the physical wounds. While some 2,400 
official combat deaths are listed from the war on Iraq to date, 
8,500 are also wounded physically or psychologically severely 
enough that they cannot return to battle. Suicides are on the 
rise, and there is not adequate counseling or support available 
for the transition back to civilian life. In a recent 
development, wounded soldiers are also fighting off bill 
collectors and veterans are having their credit ratings ruined 
by military pay errors.
    A new GI Bill to provide comparable college funding for 
young people who have served in AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, or 
other national civilian service programs has been proposed to 
reward and encourage such service. The current promise of 
Montgomery GI Bill college funding to veterans is in reality a 
misleading one, since many are disqualified on separation, only 
35% of those eligible actually use the matching funds, and only 
15% of those who do actually graduate from college. The current 
amounts promised pay for only 54% of the tuition at a community 
college, not a full university education. Other benefits 
promised to veterans in exchange for service are being cut as 
well.
    In recent polls on the ground, a majority of troops said 
they did not approve of the war or the way it is being handled. 
Growing numbers are going absent and veterans are speaking out 
in increasing numbers on their return home, in opposition to 
continued US involvement. As they did in Vietnam, these 
soldiers may force us once again to choose between a willing 
military force and a bad war. Retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, 
the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
said ``I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those 
who were determined to invade a country whose actions were 
peripheral . . . they knew the plan was flawed, saw 
intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war.''
    We are fighting with a military designed, not for defense, 
but for empire--with a military still focused on the Cold War 
model of combat and with the intent to create global military 
dominance. We are fighting with a military now exhausted by the 
policy and method of combat in these wars, led by those who 
have never fought in them.
    My votes for a peaceful world last year included votes for 
ending the war in Iraq, withdrawing American troops, and 
upholding America's commitment to human rights. I voted against 
using foreign aid as a blackmail to get U.N. votes, using 
preemptive military strikes against any country, supplying 
weapons to Colombia, putting weapons in space, funding the Iraq 
war, and any use of torture by the United States.

                 ALTERNATIVE BUDGETS AND WEAPON SYSTEMS

Eliminate pork and waste

    There is a pressure within each state and district to 
maintain lucrative military contracts because they create a 
certain level of employment in the community and bring in 
commercial activity and taxes. However, it has long been known 
that military contracting is not labor intensive and that the 
same funds put into the civilian sector would create many more 
jobs. Because of this pressure and a good deal of lobbying, 
certain projects that are wasteful are voted for anyway and 
alternatives are not explored. In the end, an economy built on 
the existence and continuation of war is counter-productive to 
both peace and real security and prosperity.
    Eliminating these wasteful contracts, especially around 
weapons production and equipment, would potentially save $5 
billion tax dollars.
    I challenge and want to stop the practice of raiding the 
Operations and Maintenance budget of the DoD to fund pork 
projects annually, which potentially hurts troops in the field. 
We can eliminate waste and inefficiency and save $5-9 billion.
    I have seen a proposal to commission an independent study 
and establish a Defense Savings Caucus in Congress to consider 
alternative budgets and report to appropriate committees in 
advance of authorization or allocation of defense budget funds 
annually. These alternatives would cut waste and pork, support 
real security and defense, cut deficits and restore critical 
funds to social support programs.

Decommission Cold War Weapons

    A first step would be to de-fund or reduce excessive and 
outdated Cold War era weapons systems or unworkable weapon 
systems like these:
          a. Missile Defense Weapons--$10 Billion;
          b. Virginia Class Submarines--$4 Billion/year;
          c. Nuclear Warheads--reduce to 1,000;
          d. F-22 A Raptor--$23.5 billion/100 planes;
          e. Tilt Rotor V-22 Osprey $28 billion;
          f. DD(X) Destroyers;
          g. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter;
          h. C-1307 Cargo planes;
          i. Future Combat Systems;
          j. Research & Development; and
          k. Force Structure and size.
Proposed by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, Global 
Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and Center for 
Defense Information.

Unified Security Budget

    A Unified Security Budget for FY 07 suggests: One of neo-
conservatism's leading theorists, Francis Fukuyama, has now 
declared that his movement's problem lies principally with its 
over-militarized approach to achieving its foreign policy ends. 
He writes of the enormous ``structural imbalance'' in global 
power derived from U.S. ``defense spending nearly equal to that 
of the rest of the world combined.'' The principal solution, in 
his view: ``we need to demilitarize what we have been calling 
the global war on terrorism and shift to other types of policy 
instruments.''
    This report shows how this can be done. It identifies 
nearly $62 billion in cuts to the regular defense budget, 
mostly to weapons systems that have scant relevance to the 
threats we face, and therefore can be eliminated or scaled back 
with no sacrifice to our security. The war in Iraq is funded by 
supplemental appropriations. And it identifies $52 billion to 
be added to the budgets for the tools of defense and 
prevention. This shift would partially demilitarize our 
national security strategy by turning the current six-to-one 
military-to-non-military balance into a better balance of three 
to one. That is, it would double the proportional amount our 
government devotes to its non-military security tools. It would 
bring our spending more in line with the rhetoric of the 
president's own national security strategy.
    Key finding: The recent flare-up of concern over foreign 
management of U.S. ports creates an opening for the real issues 
of port security to be given the attention they deserve. Though 
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has concluded that 
weapons of mass destruction are most likely to enter the United 
States by sea, we will spend four times more deploying a 
missile defense system that has failed most of its tests than 
we will spend on port security.
    Key finding: Hurricane Katrina displayed how under-prepared 
the United States is for protecting critical domestic 
infrastructure and mitigating the effects of a catastrophic 
event. Yet remarkably, the administration's budget decreases 
funds to cities and states for critical infrastructure 
protection and first responders by 26 percent.
    Key finding: The Sept. 11 commission concluded that 
``preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass 
destruction must be elevated above all other problems of 
national security.'' The Bush administration's budget for 
threat reduction and nonproliferation, at approximately $1.3 
billion, falls far short of this standard.
    Key finding: One benchmark for improvement cited in last 
year's version of this report has been met. The 
administration's budget request funds the account for 
Diplomatic and Consular Affairs slightly higher than its 
account for Foreign Military Financing. However, total foreign 
military assistance--more than $8 billion--outstrips the 
combined totals for diplomatic affairs and Embassy security, 
construction and maintenance, at $6.2 billion.
    Key finding: Favoring its own programs over collective 
approaches that coordinate the work of international donors, 
the administration has cut its contribution to the Global Fund 
for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, while increasing funding 
for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). 
Yet the Global Fund delivers assistance to eight times as many 
countries, including those with the fastest rising infection 
rates. PEPFAR also prohibits the use of generic drugs, which 
means that fewer people will be treated, at higher cost.
    This proposal comes from the Center for Defense 
Information, Foreign Policy in Focus, Security Policy Working 
Group and a broader Task Force that includes other 
organizations addressing alternatives to war and massive 
military funding.

A Realistic Defense--Korb Report

    The Korb Report--A Realistic Defense by Lawrence Korb, a 
former Asst. Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve 
Affairs, Installations and Logistics, proposes a budget that 
would reduce spending in FY07 by $60 billion by the following:
    Reduce the nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads--$14 billion;
    Eliminate unworkable missile defenses; continue research--
$8 billion;
    Terminate or cut back on Cold War weapons systems, F-22A 
Raptor, Virginia Class Submarine, DD/X Destroyers, V-22 Tilt 
Rotor Ospreys, C-130J Cargo Transports--$28 billion;
    Reduce excess forces structure in Navy and Air Force--5 
billion; and
    Cut waste using new model for current warfare--$5 billion.
    Overview: These cuts will make our forces stronger, divert 
funds back to personnel who need them, cut pork, waste and 
outdated or unworkable weapons that make the US weaker. Is 
cutting the defense budget in wartime a paradox? Right now the 
costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not coming from 
the overall defense budget but from $400 billion in 
supplemental funding to date, including $100 billion in 2005 
and $115 billion in 2006. Despite the war on terror, the 
Department of Homeland Security budget is $43 billion, which is 
only 2% of the defense budget. $111 billion of the regular 
budgets pay for 1.4 million active duty and 800,000 reservists, 
with all mobilizations of those troops paid by the supplemental 
funding. $154 billion goes to Operation and Maintenance and 
civilian employee costs. $24 billion to the Department of 
Energy to maintain 10,000 nuclear warheads, $174 billion is 
spent on new weapons, research and development, and facilities 
and bases.
    The proposed FY07 budget is $483 billion and $3 trillion 
projected over five years. This is more than all the other 
military budgets of the world combined. It is an increase of 
$20 billion over FY06 levels and $150 billion over Clinton era 
budgets. In addition, our allies are spending a total of $300 
billion on their military forces. Russia and China combined are 
spending $100 billion, and all other rogue states or perceived 
enemies are spending a total of $50 billion.

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

Recruitment, privacy rights and discharges

    Joint statement to HASC July 19, 2005.--``To make matters 
worse there are now confirmed reports of recruiters lying, 
forging reports, and threatening jail time in order to sign new 
recruits this past May. Army recruiters in Colorado were caught 
on audio and video tape advising a potential recruit on how to 
go about getting a fake high school diploma, as well as where 
to purchase a special concoction to drink in order to pass the 
drug test. Another Army recruiter in Texas was also recorded 
leaving a message for a potential recruit threatening them with 
an arrest warrant and jail time if they didn't show up for a 
scheduled meeting with a recruiter. These high-profile cases of 
recruiter misconduct have forced the Army to cease recruiting 
operations nationwide on May 20, and reinforce the high 
standards in honesty and integrity the Army holds for it's 
recruiters. One report released by the New York Times showed 
480 cases of recruiter misconduct that have been investigated 
in the Army in 2005. Of those 480 cases, 90 have been 
substantiated, 98 recruiters have been punished, and eight 
recruiters have been relieved of duty. Recruiters are 
reportedly feeling the strain as well, often working long hours 
with little rest and poor results. The recruiting environment, 
recruiters say, has been especially hard ever since the ``war 
on terror'' began. Since October 2002, 37 Army recruiters have 
gone AWOL, many have requested other assignments and one had 
even applied for a conscientious objector discharge.''
    ``Rough Road for Recruiters'', The Objector, CCCO, 2005.--I 
continually receive complaints from parents that their children 
are being targeted for recruitment to the armed forces by 
recruiters.
    These high school children are being visited at their homes 
by recruiters. This is wrong.
    In addition, I remember litigation concluded by this 
Administration against the Greatest Generation veterans saying 
that recruiters back then didn't have the authority to offer 
health care for life, but the offers were made and recruits 
joined, believing that they would have health care for life. 
The courts ruled against the veterans. This amendment addresses 
misconduct on the part of military recruiters who are under 
pressure to meet quotas.
    Residents of my district in Georgia have been calling a 
national GI Rights 800 hotline number for help when they 
realize they have been wrongly or fraudulently enlisted or 
given false promises by a recruiter.
    This early enlistment program of 16 and 17 year old 
children accounts for more than 90% of all recruits, after 
graduation from high school.
    Minors who reached the age of 18 before complaining, or 
anyone who failed to make a timely claim within 180 days was 
said to have ``constructively enlisted'' despite recruiter 
misconduct.
    There have also been press reports of disciplinary actions 
taken against a string of recruiters involved in raping their 
prospective enlistees. Army Times reports a 40% increase in the 
reported assaults in 2005, over 2,300 incidents.
    The number of recruiters punished or demoted for these 
violations has been far less than those reassigned for failing 
to meet their quotas.
    In this Committee I failed to secure passage of an 
amendment that would have required an impartial witness to be 
present when the enlistment agreement is signed. Within the 180 
days of entering duty, any enlistee who could make a convincing 
case of recruiter impropriety could have the contract revoked 
without punishment or any characterization as a discharge. The 
Secretary of the branch would review the claim, and if there 
were insufficient evidence in rebuttal from the recruiter, the 
recruit would be released and provided transportation to the 
member's home of record or point of enlistment.
    My suggested grounds for revoking an enlistment contract 
are simple, clear and fair:
    No witness or no copy of a full contract;
    Coercion, threats or intimidation to enlist or keep a 
recruit in the Delayed Entry Program;
    A recruiter misrepresents benefits, educational funds, 
bonuses, assignments, or the likelihood of being exposed to 
combat or regaining custody of any children while in;
    A recruiter interferes with criminal justice proceedings, 
fines or convictions, or enlists anyone pending legal charges, 
fines, confinement, or on probation or parole;
    A recruiter omits, conceals or falsifies any disqualifying 
condition or creates false documents.
    Under this amendment, all recruits would have been given 
notice of their rights under these rules to revoke any 
defective enlistment contract. The Secretary of Defense would 
provide annual statistical reports to Congress on the number 
and type of recruitment improprieties and the rates of 
disciplinary action or prosecutions begun and their final 
dispositions.
    This revision would have gone a long way towards ending the 
damaging practices of recruiter misrepresentation and creating 
the conditions for a truly voluntary military that keeps its 
promises to enlisted members and does not recruit those who 
clearly do not qualify for duty.

            NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND/NO CHILD LEFT UN-RECRUITED

Student privacy

    This Authorization also failed to protect the privacy of 
students in secondary schools under provisions of the No Child 
Left Behind Act that allow military recruiters to request phone 
and address contact lists from schools, but allows parents and 
students to refuse release. It should have required that 
parents or student's opt-in and request release to recruiters 
and assumed that privacy is protected otherwise. Rep. Honda on 
which I am a co-sponsor has introduced a bill to this effect. 
(Language of HR 551 in Appendix)

Recruiter campus access

    Since the recent Supreme Court decision [Rumsfeld v FAIR] 
and current laws require that speech forums be set up as equal 
access for military recruiters to all colleges, universities 
and high schools that accept federal funding, that forum 
requires another point of view.
    This Authorization should have provided equal access for 
information about realities of military life and service, 
statistical information on treatment and discharge of women and 
people of color, combat experiences, stories from veterans and 
military family members, and alternative ways to fund college, 
learn job skills, apprentice or attend trade school and other 
alternatives to enlistment. This would have required equal or 
the same access for alternative information, as recruiters will 
now have.

Authority to administer oaths of enlistment

    There is a section of this Authorization that needs some 
clarification as to its purpose. Sec. 551 concerns the military 
enlistment oath and who may administer it. It specifically 
amends Section 502 and Section 1031 of title 10, United States 
Code by striking `This oath may be taken before any 
commissioned officer of any armed force.' And inserting `This 
oath may be taken before the President of the United States of 
America, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, any commissioned 
officer or other person designated under regulations prescribed 
by the Secretary of Defense.'
    Since there is a regulated process for taking enlistment 
oaths at special processing centers or as a result of 
commissioning as an officer, it is not clear why officials at 
the level of the President, Vice President and Secretary of 
Defense would be involved in such procedures, or why any 
``other person'' than a commissioned officer would be 
designated to administer such an oath.
    Is this a response to a perceived emergency in which such a 
select group of people would be forced to administer such 
oaths? Does it set up a process or capability of administering 
such oaths outside the regulated military process or 
procedures, or in secret?
    Clarity on this should be provided to Congress before such 
a provision is voted on and signed into law.
    CO study and Sgt. Kevin Benderman.--Sgt. Kevin Benderman is 
a man of principle who is being punished for standing up for 
his beliefs. Sgt. Benderman served in the first Gulf War 
therein learning the reality of war by taking part in it. He 
saw things that disturbed his conscience, things he never 
wanted to see or be a part of again.
    Sgt. Benderman re-enlisted and served his country honorably 
in Afghanistan, when the United States entered combat and Iraq, 
he realized he had to make a decision. He searched his own 
conscience and talked to his family, and decided to file for 
discharge as a conscientious objector. Sgt. Benderman knew that 
he could no longer be part of a military at war.
    He followed the legal procedures in filing his claim of 
conscience, but the unit officers responsible for processing 
that claim did not. A chaplain refused to make time for his 
interview, which is required before he can be evaluated. Once 
his command was alerted to his intention to be discharged he 
faced hostility, but he continued to perform his duties 
professionally and well. The delay in hearing his claim lasted 
until he had been reassigned to a unit ready to deploy to Iraq, 
and due to conflicting orders he missed the unit movement while 
he worked on his discharge claim.
    Over the long months of waiting for a hearing, Sgt. 
Benderman began to speak out more publicly about his feelings 
regarding war and the conditions in his unit and the military. 
These statements were used to question his claim's sincerity. 
Instead of being properly evaluated according to regulations 
and rules by impartial officers, Sgt. Benderman was harassed 
and then denied his claim. Instead of being honorably 
discharged and having his Constitutionally protected beliefs 
respected, Sgt. Benderman was given multiple charges and sent 
to the Army prison at Ft. Lewis, Washington where he is serving 
an 18 month sentence.
    Our country owes more than this to Sgt. Benderman for his 
combat and for his continued honorable service. We owe more 
than that to his conscience and to that sacred principle that 
led President John F. Kennedy to say that he ``longed for the 
day when the conscientious objector will hold the same status 
in society that the warrior does today.'' We owe more than that 
to those who serve our country and inform our conscience and 
theirs in the crucible of war. We owe more than this to the 
veterans who have returned from wars only to realize they have 
violated the deepest parts of themselves without knowing it at 
the time.
    I introduced a successful amendment to this Authorization 
Act to commission a Government Accountability Office study from 
1989 to the present on the treatment of military conscientious 
objectors, in order to determine the total number of all 
applications (even if not acted on), number of discharges or 
reassignments to non-combatant duty, processing of claims, 
average time for consideration, assignment to non-combatant 
duty while claims are pending, reasons for approval or 
disapproval, effect of Stop Loss provisions in first Gulf war 
and since, and pre-war statistical comparisons.
    This amendment was offered with Sergeant Kevin Benderman, 
and his wife Monica, in mind. I offer this amendment for him 
and the millions of others who might be similarly situated if 
the Vice President is right and the American people experience 
war for the next generation.
    This 180-day study will reveal the total number of 
applications for re-assignment or discharge as a conscientious 
objector filed in each of the military branches, by active and 
reserve forces, since January 1, 1989 through December 31, 
2006.
    Ours is a country of laws and beliefs, and we have a 
Constitution that separates religious beliefs and the rule of 
law and government. Every major religious faith recognizes the 
primacy of conscience in relation to war.
    Conscience is not cowardice; conscience is clarity. I hope 
this study will give us the needed information to institute a 
sound policy regarding rights of conscience in the military. 
(Amendment 1 in appendix)

                                  UCMJ

    We have an outmoded system of military law and justice. 
Other industrialized nations allow military unionization and 
have abandoned internal military judicial systems and courts 
during peacetime. Our biased system results in conviction rates 
at courts-martial of over 90%. Everyone involved in the trial 
is a member of the military and judicial, witness, jury and 
defense independence is compromised.
    This Authorization should have adopted the long-ignored 
findings of the influential Cox Commission relating to the UCMJ 
or should have abandoned it in favor of civilian courts for all 
but battlefield offenses or crimes in a distant theater of war 
where no other option is available.

Cox Commission Report of the Commission on the 50th Anniversary of the 
               Uniform Code of Military Justice--May 2001

    These are the primary recommendations of the Cox 
Commission:
    A. Modify the pretrial role of the convening authority in 
both selecting court-martial members and making other pre-trial 
legal decisions that best rest within the purview of a sitting 
military judge.
    B. Increase the independence, availability and 
responsibilities of military judges.
    C. Implement additional protections in death penalty cases.
    These proposals, however, do not exhaust the need for 
reform within the military justice system. Additional matters 
worthy of further consideration include:

                        A. STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATES

    The impression that staff judge advocates (SJAs) possess 
too much authority over the court-martial process is nearly as 
damaging to perceptions of military justice as the over-
involvement of convening authorities at trial. The broad 
authority granted some staff judge advocates creates a number 
of unwanted, contradictory images of courts-martial: that over-
zealous prosecutors can pursue charges at will and are rewarded 
for aggressive prosecution, that convening authorities 
routinely disregard the legal advice of their SJAs in order to 
pursue unwarranted or even vindictive prosecutions, and that 
lawyers, rather than line officers, control the military 
justice apparatus. Staff judge advocates, which act as counsel 
to commanding officers and not as independent authorities, 
should not exert influence once charges are preferred, should 
work out plea bargains only upon approval of the convening 
authority, and deserve a clear picture of what their 
responsibilities are.

                      B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES

    The Commission's focus is on military criminal justice, but 
we would be remiss in ignoring the impression of unfairness 
created by the growing use of administrative discharge action 
in lieu of court-martial. While the services must be afforded 
considerable latitude to manage their personnel, there is no 
denying that administrative action, from non-judicial 
punishment to administrative withdrawal of qualifications, 
certifications, and promotion opportunities, can have a 
devastating effect on an individual's enlistment or career.
    The misuse, or the perception of misuse, of these 
administrative processes subverts the fundamental protections 
of the UCMJ, destroying the notion of fundamental fairness that 
is so critical to a professional military force. The Commission 
recognizes that an aggrieved service member may seek 
administrative redress at either the appropriate military 
administrative appeal board or in federal court, but in most 
instances these processes cannot make these individuals whole. 
Rarely can service members be returned to normal career tracks 
once they have been unfairly administratively sanctioned and 
fallen behind their career peer groups. Thus, the Commission 
recommends an overall review of the military disciplinary 
system should consider, and, where necessary, reform, the 
administrative disciplinary and sanctioning process.
    Three aspects of the current system in particular concern 
the Commission:
    First, the manner in which discharges are characterized is 
a relic of the past and should be updated to reflect 
contemporary realities.
    Second, the current system encourages disparate treatment 
of service members.
    Finally, the current system does not provide ready access 
to the federal courts or other appellate review. Consideration 
should be given to providing for military appellate review of 
administrative discharges.

                           C. FERES DOCTRINE

    The Commission believes that a study of this doctrine is 
warranted. An examination of the claims that have been barred 
by the doctrine, and a comparison of service members' rights to 
those of other citizens, could reform military legal doctrine 
in light of present day realities and modern tort practice. 
Revisiting the Feres Doctrine would also signal to service 
members that the United States government is committed to 
promoting fairness and justice in resolving military personnel 
matters.

                             D. SENTENCING

    The Commission believes the sentencing process at court-
martial deserves further review. Suggestions for reform have 
ranged from the use of sentencing guidelines to making military 
judges responsible for all sentencing. An anomaly of the court-
martial sentencing process is that a military accused may 
request to be sentenced by military judge alone only if he or 
she elects to be tried without court members. The Commission 
urges Congress to authorize a military accused to permit the 
military judge to pass on a sentence even if a trial has 
proceeded before court members. Further, the Commission 
recommends that serious consideration and study be given to 
making military judges responsible for all sentencing in all 
cases, and to granting military judges the authority to suspend 
all or part of a court-martial sentence.

               E. INSTRUCTION ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

    The armed forces' current management of conscientious 
objectors is hindered by inadequate trial instructions and 
administrative shortcomings, both of which the Commission 
believes should be addressed. Protecting the rights of 
conscientious objectors is a particular concern at court-
martial, where an individual who has professed principled 
opposition to military service is judged by persons who have 
embraced that very service. Military judges should issue clear 
instructions explaining the legal status and responsibilities 
of a service member who has made a claim of conscientious 
objection but is awaiting a decision on his or her status. The 
services should also study ways to coordinate better the 
criminal and administrative processes in these cases, 
particularly when criminal charges are brought against a 
service member whose discharge for conscientious objection is 
pending.

            F. JURISDICTION OF THE MILITARY APPELLATE COURTS

    In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to limit 
the authority of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Armed Forces in Clinton v. Goldsmith, the Commission believes 
that further study to clarify the jurisdiction of appellate 
courts should be undertaken. However, if the authority of 
military judges were enhanced as suggested above in III.B., the 
question of appellate jurisdiction would begin to resolve 
itself, since military appeals courts clearly possess authority 
under the UCMJ to review the rulings of military judges at 
trial.

                   G. PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURES

    The Commission received a number of suggestions concerning 
improvements to the actual trial process. For example, many 
submissions suggested that the Article 32 officer should be 
either a military judge or a field grade judge advocate with 
enhanced powers to issue subpoenas, and to make binding 
recommendations to dismiss charges where no probable cause was 
found. Others recommended increasing the number of peremptory 
challenges for both the government and the defense, permitting 
lawyer voir dire, granting military judges contempt power over 
both military personnel and civilians during trial, and 
allowing witnesses to be sworn by either military judges or 
clerks. The Commission takes no position regarding these 
suggestions, but believes that like many of the other issues 
presented, these comments are worthy of further study and full 
consideration.

Sexual harassment, victim rights

    ``As if these revelations aren't enough to impact 
recruiting numbers, perhaps we should consider the conduct of 
recruiters. It's no secret that sexual assault, rape and 
violence against women in the military is rampant and out of 
control; but did you know it's also a problem for military 
recruiters and potential recruits? A string of sexual assaults 
of potential recruits by their military recruiters has received 
absolutely no major media coverage, and no ties have been made 
between the sexual assaults and the falling recruiting numbers. 
Stretching from July 2003 to March 2005 there have been five 
major cases that have caught our attention:
          --July 2003: an Army recruiter based in Moreno 
        Valley, CA was sentenced to 16 months in prison for 
        statutory rape of a 17-year-old female recruit.
          --January 2004: a Marine recruiter based in 
        Baltimore, MD was convicted of fondling a teenage 
        recruit and was sentenced to probation and ordered to 
        seek counseling.
          --May 2004: a Marine recruiter based in Blooming 
        Grove, NY was charged with six counts of rape, the 
        recruit was only 16 years old.
          --June 2004: a Marine recruiter based in Riverside, 
        CA was sentenced to five years in prison for raping a 
        17-year-old high school student.
          --November 2004: an Army recruiter based in 
        Riverside, CA was charged with four felony counts of 
        having sex with and providing alcohol to two 17-year-
        old girls.
          --March 2005: a National Guard recruiter based in 
        Castleton, IN faces 31 charges stemming from alleged 
        sexual assaults on seven potential female recruits.
    In each of these cases the victims claimed to have met 
their recruiter in their high schools, and in almost all of the 
cases claimed the assaults took place either in the recruiting 
office or in the recruiter's vehicles! It is this type of 
activity coupled with other factors such as the high rate of 
female soldiers getting killed or wounded in Iraq, and women 
being placed in combat positions in direct violation of DoD 
policy that have contributed to a sharp decline in female 
recruits. This decline is most notable in the Army where in 
2001 women made up 21% of new recruits but this year is 
accounting for a low 17%.''
    ``Rough Road for Recruiters'', The Objector, CCCO, 2005.--
The crimes and persistence of sexual harassment and rape seems 
only to be exaggerated in the U.S. military from recruitment to 
enlistment and in the military Academies as well. Despite a 
hostile reporting environment, limited accesses to counseling, 
confidentiality, medical support or protection, the reported 
levels are still considerably higher than those in the civilian 
world.
    Despite reassurances by Under Secretary for Defense David 
Chu recently to the HASC about measures being taken to create a 
``robust sexual assault prevention and response program,'' 
current reports from the Military Academies, the press and 
statistics only show the problem increasing.
    The lack of command authority to take these charges and 
crimes seriously and their failure to investigate, isolate and 
charge the perpetrators sends exactly the wrong message in 
regard to prevention or ``zero tolerance'' of these crimes. 
Until that practice changes, women will continue to be at risk 
and retention and recruitment will be affected, not to mention 
advancement.
    This Authorization, despite limited language about the 
issue, failed to substantially expand the rights and protection 
of victims of sexual harassment and abuse in the military and 
in military families or by veterans. A much more comprehensive 
approach, similar to those in place in civilian rape crisis 
facilities and law enforcement procedures, must be adopted as 
military policy.
    These proposals came from Miles Foundation and legislation 
proposed by Rep. Louise Slaughter.

Cost of TRICARE and drugs

    I recognize the hard work of my colleagues and of the 
Committee staff and their sincere efforts to oversee the 
Pentagon in order to provide for the common defense. In fact, 
there are some provisions in this mark-up which I can support. 
The Subcommittee plan for a 2.7% across-the-board military pay 
raise--compared to the 2.2% proposed by President Bush, which I 
believe is a very good step towards supporting our soldiers who 
have their lives on the line every day. Also the TRICARE 
program did not receive fee increases, which will be a relief 
to our military veterans. H.R. 5122 forbids the Department of 
Defense from raising the fees of TRICARE prime, standard and 
TRICARE reserve select at least until December 31, 2007. 
Postponing what now looks to be an evitable increase in the 
cost of healthcare costs for veterans will give the Comptroller 
General and Congressional Budget Office along with other 
agencies more time to address the issue of sustaining military 
healthcare over the long term.
    The bill also includes a $735 million increase to the 
Defense Health Program (DHP) to reinstate funding in 
anticipation of future cost share increases.
    It includes coverage for anesthesia and hospital costs for 
dental care for the young, mentally and physically challenged 
beneficiaries. It retains the coverage for forensic 
examinations following sexual assaults and domestic violence.
    Although this authorization retained some very beneficial 
programs for our veterans, one area of vital importance, the 
cost of prescription drugs was omitted. Rep. Skelton introduced 
an amendment to keep the military beneficiary drug costs at 
present levels of $3.00 for generic and $9.00 for brand drugs. 
This measure was soundly beaten with the majority using the 
rationale that the measure would take funds away from the war 
budget. Now, the price of drugs will rise to $6.00 and $16.00 
respectively, which will have a devastating effect on lower 
grades of enlisted men and women who are on a very limited 
budget.

Plan Colombia and Afro-Colombians

    The United States presently commits over $700 million per 
year to Plan Colombia. As in Iraq, the United States needs an 
exit strategy from the conflict in Colombia before the level of 
commitment increases further.
    Plan Colombia is supposed to be a counter-narcotics 
program. But on Good Friday, the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy at the White House issued a memo in which they 
conceded that as much coca is being planted in Colombia as 
before Plan Colombia began, perhaps more, and that across the 
Andes the coca crop is the highest it has been since 2001. Plan 
Colombia has failed and is failing. Today Colombia has the 
world's highest rate of murder and kidnapping, and rather than 
dousing the fire, Plan Colombia is fanning the flames of 
violence.
    U.S. fumigation of the fields of poor farmers continues to 
result in the destruction of the health and environment of 
residents, and the displacement of thousands in the midst of a 
vicious civil war that has already displaced hundreds of 
thousands of Colombians.
    According to the U.S. State Department, a disproportionate 
number of internally displaced people are Afro-Colombian. The 
10 million Afro-Colombians in Colombia make up nearly a quarter 
of Colombia's 44 million citizens. These Colombians already 
face legal and economic inequalities that have persisted since 
the abolition of slavery in that country.
    Afro-Colombians have the lowest per capita incomes, with 
80% living below the poverty line in a country where 27 percent 
of the population must survive on an income of less than $2 per 
day. They are concentrated in Uraba, stretching along the 
border of Panama between the Pacific and the Caribbean, and 
including the states of Choco and Antioquia.
    Choco has the lowest level of social services in Colombia, 
and the population is 85% Afro-Colombian. Afro-Colombians have 
the highest rates of illiteracy, infant mortality, and 
diseases, many of those diseases being preventable. They are 
the forgotten people of Colombia. Plan Colombia's billions of 
dollars is making life worse for them, not better.
    Since 1996, 111 Afro-Colombians and mestizos have been 
murdered or ``disappeared'' in Uraba. In response to the 
violence, Afro-Colombian communities have set up three 
Humanitarian Zones, which are recognized by the Inter-American 
Human Rights Court of the OAS as legitimate mechanisms of self-
protection. But paramilitaries working closely with Colombia's 
17th brigade and large agri-businesses intent on laying claim 
to Afro-Colombian lands, which were not legally recognized 
until 1993, are attempting to systematically displace residents 
in Uraba so that they can set up palm oil plantations and 
livestock operations. Since January 2005, a quarter million 
Colombians have been forcibly displaced. Why is the United 
States of America supporting these violations of property and 
human rights?
    The people of Uraba region have been victims of massacres 
and other large-scale abuses, but these abuses are not 
restricted to that region:
    On May 2, 2002, in the town of Bojaya, 119 Afro-Colombian 
civilians were killed by a makeshift bomb thrown by FARC 
guerrillas during a clash with paramilitary groups with ties to 
the government.
    In August 2004 an economic blockade in the Choco region by 
armed groups led to the displacement of over 1,200 Afro-
Colombians. USAID reports that in all, an estimated 2.5 million 
Colombians are currently displaced. According to Michael Deal, 
the director of the USAID mission in Colombia: ``The displaced 
Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities are truly one of the 
hemisphere's least recognized tragedies.''
    In February of 2005, a group of armed men who identified 
themselves as members of the Colombian military abducted peace 
leader Luis Eduardo Guerra and his family, including his 11-
year-old son in San Jose de Apartado in Antioquia, a village 
set up specifically as a peace community, where over 160 
killings have taken place since 1997. Their dismembered bodies, 
eight in all, were found in graves days later, among them two-
year-old Santiago Tuberquia Munoz, age 2, and Bellanyra Areiza 
Guzman, age 17.
    The massacre at San Jose de Apartado led to a suspension of 
U.S. military aid to Colombia for seven months. Yet abuses 
continue, including the indiscriminate use of explosives and 
gunfire in communities, aerial bombardment of villages by the 
Colombian Air Force, resulting in thousands evacuating, and 
aerial strafing of civilians using stealth airplanes and 
Blackhawk helicopters. On October 24, 2005 the body of Orlando 
Valencia, an Afro-Colombian standing for election as a legal 
representative for Choco, was found dead.
    In 2001, union leaders and members of the groups 
SINTRAEMCALI, which had been conducting a campaign against 
corruption and privatization of the Cali Municipal Corporation 
(EMCALI), were accused of subversion and consistently harassed, 
threatened and even killed by police, military forces and 
private security groups with alleged links to paramilitary 
groups. Former SINTAEMCALI President, Colombian Congressman 
Alexander Lopez Maya of Bogota, received a hand written death 
threat letter on October 27th, 2004. Berenice Celeyta Alayon, 
one of four Colombian recipients of the 1998 Robert F. Kennedy 
Human Rights Award, received threats and heard sounds of 
automatic weaponry on her cellular phone. They informed 
Colombia's Attorney General, and a raid took place on August 
25th, 2004 at the residence of Lt. Col. Juilan Villate Leal, of 
the Third Brigade. The raid revealed that the Colombian Army 
had provided detailed information about Ms. Celeyta and Rep. 
Maya and over 175 other names. This evidence directly 
implicated Lt. Col. Villate in a campaign known as``Operation 
Dragon'' to target and assassinate union leaders, human rights workers 
and members of the opposition.
    The United States has directly funded Colombia's 
intelligence agency, the Departamento Administrativo de 
Seguridad (DAS), for cooperative programs with the Drug 
Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) in 
the United States. The DAS reports directly to the Colombian 
Presidency. Recent charges have been brought against former DAS 
Director Jorge Noguera for assisting and calling off 
investigations of paramilitaries and drug traffickers. Noguera 
is reported to have worked actively with paramilitary leaders 
to guarantee victories for paramilitary candidates in Northern 
Colombia. The DAS also gave lists of union leaders, opposition 
leaders, activists and academics to paramilitaries. Rather than 
being investigated, Noguera was sent to a post as Consul in 
Italy.
    In late April, the body of Jaime Gomez, Chief of Staff for 
Senator Piedad Cordoba, was found by some children. Mr. Gomez 
had been captured and tortured by paramilitary groups in 
Colombia for 34 days before his murder. His flesh was burnt off 
with acid and all that remained of him was a skeleton. Dental 
records confirmed the identity of the skeleton. The skull had 
been broken or cleaved, suggesting brutal torture. Also found 
dead in the same week was Miss Liliana Gaviria, sister to the 
former Colombia President and Organization of American States 
chief Cesar Gaviria. Senator Cordoba was in Washington during 
the week of May 1-5, 2006, and was announced during session 
when Rep. McKinney introduced an amendment to end Plan Colombia 
on May 3rd. The amendment failed. Steps are being taken to try 
and ensure Sen. Cordoba's safety.
    U.S. involvement in Colombia today readily resembles 
Vietnam in the early 1960s; it could easily escalate.
    Colombia's elite are unwilling to commit their own sons and 
daughters or their own financial resources to this war, relying 
upon shady paramilitary groups, soldiers recruited from 
Colombia's underclass and funding from Uncle Sam. Are we ready 
to commit large numbers of young Americans to die in a war with 
no progress toward peace being made on the ground, in a war 
where it is the poor and the innocent who suffer, as the army, 
the military and the rebels commit human rights abuses with 
impunity? Where does it end?
    U.S. aid to Colombia should be refocused toward the 
promotion of human rights and upholding law. We need to 
strengthen the courts. We should be providing humanitarian 
assistance and economic development, not promoting military 
conflict in a country caught in the cycle of violence. The U.S. 
Embassy in Colombia and the U.S. State Department should demand 
a full and impartial investigation of all DAS officials. The 
U.S. Embassy in Colombia and the State Department should 
monitor the performance of DAS officials, as well as plans 
announced by the Colombian government to ensure that the DAS is 
not working at the behest of special interests. USAID should 
work with the Ministry of Interior to ensure that confidential 
information regarding threatened individuals under State 
protection will not be shared with other agencies. The U.S. 
State Department should demand that the Colombian government 
move to immediately disband all paramilitary groups, to put an 
end to the human rights abuses they carry out with impunity.

Posse Comitatus

    This Authorization should also have reaffirmed the 
principle of Posse Comitatus for military forces, police and 
contracted security or combat forces. This Constitutional 
principle creates a bright line between military and police 
functions.
    A call to reconfirm it was made in 2003 as part of the 
Homeland Security legislation. It is a practice and policy that 
protects the Constitution military members are sworn to 
protect, as well as the rights of the American people.
    In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bush 
administration has continued to make widespread and unnecessary 
changes in laws and administrative powers that undermine the 
most basic Constitutional principles and protected rights of 
citizens in a democracy.
    Recently, both President Bush and Senator Mark Warner (VA) 
have renewed calls to undermine or reverse the Posse Comitatus 
Act of 1867, which re-established the Constitutional principle 
and practice of separating military and police functions in a 
democracy. The experience of the founding fathers with the 
British model that combined the functions was enough to cause 
them to set that division sharply in administrative powers and 
civilian command of the military.
    The principles began to be eroded in the period following 
the end of the Civil War, and the effective occupation of areas 
of the south by federal troops who were holding military 
tribunals, carrying out executions of citizens and usurping 
local police and judicial control. Their excesses came to the 
attention of the post-war Congress and they passed the Posse 
Comitatus Act to forbid the military being used to enforce 
laws.
    Further erosion followed the end of the Vietnam War, when 
police departments were increasingly militarized in training 
and equipment as well as employing a large number of returning 
war veterans. SWAT teams were created, a clearly militarized 
police function, getting training on military bases with 
advanced weapons.
    When President George H.W. Bush came into office in the 
1980s, his programs made increased use of military troops and 
equipment in the war against drugs, supporting police and 
collecting intelligence in regard to civilian crimes. Joint 
Military Task Forces were created that combined DoD, FBI, SWAT, 
ATF and local police in sieges at Wounded Knee, Waco, Texas and 
against MOVE in Philadelphia, using tanks and military 
explosives.
    President Bush has ample authority under provisions of 
existing laws on disaster response to mobilize and command any 
and all federal assets, including military forces. State 
directed National Guard units have always worked in conjunction 
with federal troops without being put under federal control 
themselves. Both National Guard and regular military forces are 
authorized under federal and state laws to use force to protect 
lives, property and public safety during a declared emergency. 
Police functions have been wisely left to local police and 
state National Guard forces, except when the situation was so 
dire they could not function.
    The U.S. Naval Institute reports that failing to yet 
establish a Department of Homeland Security safe port program 
that would identify port workers, the administration is 
renewing powers to the Coast Guard dating back to the 1950s, 
which were used to screen unionized dock workers and to weed 
out ``Communists.'' There were, according to union 
organizations and accepted history, many abuses of this power. 
This ruling holds the potential for more abuse and yet another 
violation of the Posse Comitatus principle.
    Congress must renew their commitment to the Posse Comitatus 
Act and support the principle of separation of military and 
police functions, and the existing laws regarding 
federalization of resources during emergencies, as they did in 
2003. Bush did not need those authorities to move troops and 
federal assets into New Orleans and the Gulf States in the wake 
of Hurricane Katrina, and he does not need them for other 
public health emergencies. Existing law is sufficient, and the 
Congress needs to investigate the New Orleans response by FEMA 
and government troops, as well as examine and reject the Bush 
administration's claims that they need more power than the 
Constitution envisions or allows.
    I have introduced a concurrent resolution in this regard.

Tamiflu, Avian Bird Flu, and Secretary Rumsfeld

    ``Gilead is fortunate to have had Don Rumsfeld,'' said 
Michael L. Riordan, M.D., ``who founded Gilead in 1987 and 
[had] served as Chairman since 1993,'' . . . ``and we are very 
pleased that he has accepted the Chairmanship. . . . He has 
played an important role in helping to build and steer the 
company. His broad experience in leadership positions in both 
industry and government will serve us well as Gilead continues 
to build its commercial presence.''
    Rumsfeld served as Gilead's Chairman of the Board until 
January 22, 2001. Upon his departure, John C. Martin, Ph.D., 
Gilead's President and CEO, said ``Don Rumsfeld's insight and 
contributions over the last twelve years have been invaluable 
as Gilead has evolved from a promising biotech company into the 
worldwide biopharmaceutical corporation it is today.''

G.D. Searle/Pfizer Inc.

    ``A December 28, 2000 CBS News report on Rumsfeld stated 
that he was not only serving as chairman of the board of 
directors of Gilead Sciences, but was also serving ``as a 
member of the boards of directors of ABB (Asea Brown Boveri) 
Ltd., Tribune Company and RAND Corporation''; was ``currently 
chairman of the Salomon Smith Barney International Advisory 
Board''; served as a member of the board of directors of Amylin 
Pharmaceuticals (1991-1996); chairman and chief executive 
officer of General Instrument Corporation (October 1990 to 
August 1993); and ``served as a senior advisor to William Blair 
& Co., an investment banking firm'' (1985-1990).''
    ``As a director for Gulfstream Aerospace, his stock in the 
company reportedly was valued at $11 million when the company 
was acquired by defense contractor General Dynamics in 1999. 
But Rumsfeld scrupulously avoided any direct dealings with 
defense companies, either serving on boards or purchasing 
stock, a decision that helped to avoid the appearance of 
impropriety when he was asked to lead the Defense Department 
again.''

Open secrets

    This Authorization also failed to rescind future purchases 
of the drug Tamiflu or related products in anticipation of a 
human pandemic caused by the Asian Bird Flu virus. Since the 
potential of such a pandemic is low, and a natural extract of 
the Black Elderberry plant is fully effective in countering the 
virus, this would be a sensible policy.
    In 2005, the Defense Supply Center created a contract with 
Gilead/Roche for $68 million to purchase 2.4 million capsules 
of Tamiflu in anticipation of its use to curb a potential 
pandemic among humans of the Avian Bird Flu virus A (H5N1). In 
addition, an apparently separate contract for $58 million was 
made with Roche Laboratories in New Jersey for all four 
branches for Oseltamivir Phosphate Capsules (Tamiflu) to the 
Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    There were plans reported in Fortune to expand to hundreds 
of billions of dollars in purchases.
    The flu strain, which is killing large numbers of birds 
across species, is slightly zoonetic, in other words it can 
potentially pass from birds to humans who handle them. However, 
virologists quoted in the New York Times reveal that many 
experts feel the possibility of the virus mutating into a form 
that will pass easily from human to human and create a pandemic 
is low, and the fear of hundreds of millions of deaths is 
exaggerated.
    Millions of chickens have reportedly been infected in Asia, 
where many people live with the birds, and only 200 people have 
been infected. To date, there have been just over 100 deaths 
from the virus in the last five-year period and no indication 
it is spreading between humans. Not all infections are fatal, 
and no one has gotten the virus from another human, even during 
infection.
    At least one medical expert at the National Center for Food 
Protection and Defense within the Department of Homeland 
Security, Dr. Michael Osterholm believes that antiviral drugs 
will only have a minimal effect during a pandemic. ``What we 
don't know is if Tamiflu will work,'' he was quoted as saying 
by Fox News. Like other antiviral approaches to the immune 
system, they often spark mutations in viruses that create 
resistance to the cure. Nature reported last October that virus 
samples taken from a Vietnamese woman were resistant to Tamiflu 
following massive use of the drug in that region. The New 
England Journal of Medicine makes the same point, reporting 
that four out of eight human victims died while taking Tamiflu. 
The Lancet notes the resistance of this type-A influenza virus 
to Tamiflu and researchers call it ``alarming''.
    In addition to that, Tamiflu has known negative side 
effects listed by Roche, the manufacturer. Their consumer 
literature warns against use by pregnant women, those planning 
to get pregnant, or breastfeeding, as well as children less 
than one year of age. Those with kidney disease, heart disease, 
respiratory or any serious health condition are also told to 
get a professional opinion. There have been some anaphylactic 
responses as well. Studies by the European Medicines Evaluation 
Agency suggest symptoms can include hallucinations and 
delusions, and may have caused abnormal behavior and suicide 
leaps by two Vietnamese teens that took the drug.
    There are simple and inexpensive natural products that have 
proven effective in clinical trials and in use in killing the 
H5N1 virus at a 99% level. No-Germs is a British over the 
counter hand spray that disinfects and easily stops the spread 
of the virus. Skinvisible is patenting a clorhexadine hand 
sanitizer that is similarly deadly to the virus. Another 
natural product that has been proven for years to work against 
a wide range of influenza strains is an extract of the black 
elderberry plant known as Sambucol. In clinical tests reported 
in Israel and England, it promises to be effective at 
destroying H5N1 in cell cultures.
    Finally, the purchase and stockpiling of Tamiflu, which is 
ineffective and may have already mutated a resistant strain of 
the virus, creates profit and high stock dividends. Gilead 
Science, a company whose board includes Governor Pete Wilson, 
former Secretary of State George Schultz and until his 
appointment as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who is 
still a blind investor benefiting from the windfall to Gilead 
stocks.
    I proposed an amendment, which did not pass, to the 
Committee calling for a sense of Congress that no further funds 
should be appropriated by the Department of Defense for the 
purchase or stockpiling of Tamiflu or any related product.

GAO Study on privatization of security

    I introduced an amendment to the Committee that also failed 
to create provisions for a study relating to military 
contracting by private or corporate security forces or private 
armies, in order to insure Congressional and legal oversight, 
legal restrictions and restraints, limits to use of force, 
proper rules of engagement, assessment of competitive costs, 
violations of Posse Comitatus, limits on domestic use of such 
forces, and legal jurisdiction under UCMJ and accountability.
    Huge corporations like Halliburton and their subsidiary 
Kellogg, Brown & Root, Bechtel and DynCorp, MPRI, and private 
firms like Blackwater and SAIC, have been making headlines 
since 9/11 by contracting at high cost, low transparency and 
limited accountability for security and other functions more 
traditionally carried out by military and police forces both in 
combat zones and here at home. Often the contracts are no-bid 
affairs due to ``emergencies'' and cost overruns, overcharges 
or loss of excessive unaccounted amounts of funding are 
acknowledged, but lead to no punishment or breach of contract. 
In fact, there is evidence of profitable kickbacks and a 
pattern of continuing lucrative future contracts.
    These firms have provided help for sale in response to 
conflicts and natural disasters, including building and 
preparing military base areas in advance of troops, putting out 
oil fires, creating infrastructure and carrying out security 
functions during combat in Afghanistan, Kosovo, the Balkans, 
Liberia, Colombia, the Philippines, and now New Orleans and 
other parts of Louisiana. This trend has included handing over 
the rebuilding of Iraq and other areas to these firms as well 
as meals, cleaning, maintenance, repair and other functions for 
the troops. Have they become too essential to criticize?
    In addition, their employees often operate from a different 
set of expectations, rules and norms of behavior than are 
adhered to by the people in uniform trained to work with 
certain restrictions and under Constitutional and international 
restraints. These differences range from an unwillingness to go 
into harms way, as well as endangerment of our troops or lack 
of adequate support. Lacking clear chains of command and rules 
of engagement, these firms have participated in activities that 
violate laws, codes of conduct and limits on behavior. At the 
very least they have created or supported actions that damage 
the environment and the social order in other countries and 
affect their human rights.
    My failed amendment required a study, completed in 180 days 
by the Comptroller General's office of the results and 
consequences, the costs and contradictions of privatization in 
the area of security so far. It required an assessment of 
financial transparency, competitive bidding, discrimination in 
contracts or hiring, adequate training and background checks of 
employees, and a comparison to the recruiting, hiring and 
training process of those who worked in proximity to them.
    It sought to determine if clear lines of authority and 
command under the Department of Defense for all the employees 
involved were set out and whether employees were adequately 
trained in the use of force, lethal weapons and rules of 
engagement that apply to regular forces. It would have explored 
whether or not these contractors followed the Constitution, the 
Geneva Accords and human rights principles established by the 
United Nations.
    My changes would also have determined if these contracting 
entities have been held accountable for any violations, paid 
any fines or if employees have suffered any reduction in pay, 
reassignment or termination of employment or faced legal 
prosecutions of any kind. It would also have examined 
comparable costs for the same functions performed by our own 
armed forces and police, excessive gaps in pay or benefits, the 
long-term health risks of such work, and compare the training, 
qualification and performance of government and private 
agencies and employees.
    It would have established a rule that in future contract 
bidding no contractor who is found to have violated the rules 
of any federal contract will be allowed to be granted 
additional contracts for a period of 5 years.
    This would have gone a long way to making these huge 
corporations accountable and responsible to the people who pay 
to hire them, set standards and rules for their behavior, set 
up clear chains of command, and require transparency, reporting 
and consequences to their violations or actions.

Nigeria

    This Authorization also failed to address limits on U.S. 
intervention abroad on behalf of U.S. corporate investments and 
infrastructure relating to their control of key resources, 
excessive profits and environmental damage. Nigeria has been a 
prime example of these abuses by the oil corporations, and they 
supported a brutal government repression against local people 
who organized around those issues for change and 
accountability.
    Armed conflict in the Niger Delta has reportedly stalled 
plans that U.S. military officials have to deploy American 
Marines to the region, and Pentagon sources confirmed that 
officials are reviewing an agreement with Nigeria that would 
have U.S. Marines protect oil facilities in Nigeria because of 
the growing battle between Nigerian armed forces and 
insurgents.
    Current deployments abroad, reduced enlistment and 
retention, and depleting equipment and resources reportedly tax 
U.S. military forces already, and the sovereignty of both 
countries should be respected by opposing the introduction of 
any U.S. troops or armed forces into Nigeria.
    Homeland Security Wire revealed recently that an Israeli 
firm, Aeronautics, is being contracted by the government or the 
corporations to guard oil company infrastructure.
    This Authorization should have indicated that Congress 
opposes current plans to introduce U.S. Marines or other forces 
into Nigeria to protect oil reserves, or for other purposes.

                            NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    The United States currently has over 5,500 deployed nuclear 
weapons and 4,200 more in storage, according to the Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace. Each of those weapons is 
capable of killing over a million people. Fifteen years after 
the end of the Cold War, the Bush administration is proposing 
to build yet another generation of new nuclear weapons, the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead, or RRW.
    The RRW will require the construction of a new nuclear bomb 
plant, called the Consolidated Plutonium Center. That new bomb 
plant would produce 125 to 200 plutonium ``pits'' a year for 
new nuclear warheads. One of the sites being considered for 
this new, multi-billion dollar bomb plant is the Savannah River 
Site on the South Carolina-Georgia border, not far from my 
Congressional district. Instead of building new nuclear 
weapons, we should be dismantling these Cold War relics. As the 
chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), recently said in the 
Washington Post, ``There is not much dismantlement going on . . 
. The Defense Department never wants to get rid of anything.'' 
We are in the ridiculous situation of paying to maintain one 
nuclear weapon system, the W84 warhead that was built for the 
Air Force ground-based cruise missile, even though there is no 
longer a missile on which it can be delivered.
    The Energy Department authorization for nuclear weapons 
work is over $6.4 billion for FY 2007. That spending level is 
1.5 times that spent on nuclear weapons during the Cold War, 
even adjusted for inflation. At that time, the U.S. was 
building thousands of nuclear weapons a year.

                        NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

    Instead of spending billions of dollars on Cold War nuclear 
systems, we should be addressing current, real world threats. 
During the first presidential debate in 2004, President Bush 
stated: ``. . . the biggest threat facing this country is 
weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist 
network.'' Yet we are seriously under-funding our nuclear 
nonproliferation programs. Hundreds of tons on nuclear weapons 
materials are stored at inadequately security facilities in 
Russia and perhaps 20 other countries. A small amount of 
nuclear weapons material could be fashioned into crude nuclear 
weapons that would destroy downtown New York or Atlanta, 
killing hundreds of thousands of people and costing billions of 
dollars. A nuclear detonation in any U.S. city would cause 
devastation that would make the 9/11 attack and the Katrina 
hurricane pale in comparison.
    We should be aggressively funding those nonproliferation 
programs that secure and destroy nuclear weapons and materials. 
One such program is the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The 
Bush administration requested $107 million and the House Armed 
Services Committee did increase that amount by another $50 
million. However, we should be funding that program at least at 
$500 million a year. That would improve our real security.

Closing

    Congressman John Murtha said that before we go to war, 
``there should be a threat to national security, we should use 
overwhelming force, and we should have an exit strategy. All 
three of these principles were violated in the case of Iraq. I 
was unable to support our committee's report back to the Floor 
of the House, for many of the reasons listed above, and expect 
to oppose this bill on the Floor as well. The reasons for my 
opposition to this bill are too numerous to list here in the 
short time allowed for the filing of the dissent. They would 
include the massive social program cuts in areas such as health 
and education to pay for an unnecessary war and to pad some of 
this administration's top officials and friends. It also would 
include environmental clean-up at the nuclear weapons complex, 
the unattended toxic dumps scattered on bases across the 
nation, the military stance on abortion, gay and lesbian rights 
and discrimination, war powers, using bases to house Katrina 
survivors, no more permanent bases in Iraq, alternate fuel and 
on and on.
    And until this Congress has demonstrated that we are ready 
to exhibit leadership for global peace, I will continue to vote 
against the so-called National Defense Authorization Act and 
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
                                                  Cynthia McKinney.


