[House Report 109-89]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 109-89
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1815
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including committee cost estimate]
May 20, 2005.--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 2006
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 109-89
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1815
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including committee cost estimate]
May 20, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005
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 S. Rangel, 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................................. 11
Hearings......................................................... 14
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION.................. 15
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 15
OVERVIEW....................................................... 15
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 17
Overview................................................... 17
Items of Special Interest.................................. 20
AH-64 modern signal processing unit...................... 20
High-altitude Army National Guard aviation training site. 20
UH-60 aircraft wireless intercom system upgrade.......... 20
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 21
Overview................................................... 21
Items of Special Interest.................................. 24
Advanced precision kill weapon system.................... 24
Patriot system reporting requirements.................... 24
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 24
Overview................................................... 24
Items of Special Interest.................................. 29
Abrams tank modernization................................ 29
Stryker tire second source qualification................. 29
Ammunition Procurement, Army................................. 30
Overview................................................... 30
Items of Special Interest.................................. 33
Kansas army ammunition plant modern munitions enterprise. 33
Lake City army ammunition plant.......................... 33
M19 Modern demolition initiators......................... 33
Missile propellant/warhead chemical oxidizer recycling... 34
Rapid wall breaching kit................................. 34
Small caliber ammunition manufacturer qualification...... 34
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 35
Overview................................................... 35
Items of Special Interest.................................. 44
AN/ARS-6A technology upgrade............................. 44
Best value procurement practices for tactical wheeled
vehicles............................................... 44
Cartledge infuser........................................ 44
Deployable power generation distribution system.......... 45
Heavy expanded mobility tactical truck light equipment
transporter............................................ 45
Nonsystem training devices............................... 45
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 46
Overview................................................... 46
Items of Special Interest.................................. 51
Crashworthy crew chief seats............................. 51
EA-6B modifications...................................... 51
Joint primary air training system........................ 51
P-3 modifications........................................ 52
Shared reconnaissance pod logistics support.............. 52
T-45 training system..................................... 53
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 53
Overview................................................... 53
Item of Special Interest................................... 57
Tomahawk missile......................................... 57
Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps.................. 57
Overview................................................... 57
Item of Special Interest................................... 60
MN79 anti-personnel obstacle breaching system............ 60
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 60
Overview................................................... 60
Item of Special Interest................................... 63
Navy shipbuilding programs............................... 63
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 64
Overview................................................... 64
Items of Special Interest.................................. 73
Joint threat emitter..................................... 73
Material handling equipment.............................. 73
Mine sweeper re-engining................................. 73
Naval tactical fiber switch system....................... 74
Special Operations swimmer/diver training craft.......... 74
Surveillance towed array sensor system twin-line towed
arrays................................................. 74
Transportable anti-intrusion pontoon barrier system...... 74
Ultrasonic maintenance tools............................. 75
National Defense Sealift Fund................................ 75
Overview................................................... 75
Item of Special Interest................................... 75
Maritime prepositioning ship lease buyout................ 75
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 76
Overview................................................... 76
Items of Special Interest.................................. 82
Combat casualty care equipment upgrade................... 82
Family of construction equipment......................... 82
Marines tactical remote sensor system.................... 82
Marines topographic equipment............................ 82
Night vision equipment................................... 83
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 83
Overview................................................... 83
Items of Special Interest.................................. 89
A-10 litening advanced targeting pod..................... 89
AN/ARS-6 V12 personnel locator system.................... 89
C-17..................................................... 89
C-130 modifications...................................... 90
F-15E.................................................... 91
F-16 bomb rack unit-57................................... 91
Global hawk.............................................. 91
Joint strike fighter..................................... 92
KC-130J and C-130J....................................... 93
Link 16 support and sustainment.......................... 93
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle......................... 94
Senior scout............................................. 94
U-2 senior year electro-optical system focal planes...... 95
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................ 96
Overview................................................... 96
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 98
Overview................................................... 98
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 101
Overview................................................... 101
Items of Special Interest.................................. 107
Combat survivor radios................................... 107
Digital airport surveillance radar and Department of
Defense advanced automations system.................... 107
Force protection surveillance system..................... 108
General information technology........................... 108
Mobile approach control system........................... 109
Point of maintenance and combat ammunition system
initiative............................................. 109
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 110
Overview................................................... 110
Items of Special Interest.................................. 115
Chemical and biological defense procurement.............. 115
Chemical agents and munitions destruction................ 115
Force protection......................................... 117
Persistent unmanned air vehicle intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance below the brigade
level.................................................. 117
Special Operations Forces intelligence systems........... 118
Special weapons observation reconnaissance direct action
system................................................. 118
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 119
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 119
Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations.......... 119
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 119
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for UH-60M/MH-
60 Helicopters........................................... 119
Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Apache
Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sights and
Pilot Night Vision Sensors............................... 119
Section 113--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Apache
Block II Conversion...................................... 119
Section 114--Acquisition Strategy for Tactical Wheeled
Vehicle Programs......................................... 119
Section 115--Limitation on Army Modular Force Initiative... 120
Section 116--Contract Requirement for Objective Individual
Combat Weapon-Increment One.............................. 121
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 121
Section 121--Virginia Class Submarine Program.............. 121
Section 122--LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship
Program.................................................. 121
Section 123--Future Major Surface Combatant, Destroyer Type 121
Section 124--Littoral Combat Ship Program.................. 121
Section 125--Authorization of Two Additional Arleigh Burke
Class Destroyers......................................... 122
Section 126--Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S.
Carl Vinson.............................................. 122
Section 127--Report on Propulsion System Alternatives for
Surface Combatants....................................... 122
Section 128--Aircraft Carrier Force Structure.............. 122
Section 129--Contingent Transfer of Additional Funds for
CVN-21 Carrier Replacement Program....................... 123
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 123
Section 131--Multiyear Procurement Authority for C-17
Aircraft................................................. 123
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters................... 123
Section 141--Requirement that all Tactical Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles use Specified Standard Data Link................ 123
Section 142--Limitation on Initiation of New Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Systems................................... 123
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION.............. 124
OVERVIEW....................................................... 124
Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation............... 127
Overview................................................... 127
Items of Special Interest.................................. 139
Abrams improved track.................................... 139
Accelerated development of heavy-fuel turbine engine..... 139
Advanced amputee treatment research and development...... 139
Advanced battery technology initiative................... 140
Advanced carbon nanotechnology........................... 140
Advanced lightweight composite armor materials for
ballistic impact and blast protection.................. 140
Advanced weapons technology.............................. 141
Aerostat joint project office............................ 141
Applied communications and information networking........ 141
Armored systems modernization............................ 141
Army medical peer-reviewed applied research and advanced
technology development initiative...................... 144
Army space and missile defense architecture analysis
program................................................ 145
Center for rotorcraft innovation......................... 145
Centers of excellence.................................... 145
Combat vehicle electronics............................... 146
Common remote operating weapon station................... 146
Communications and electronics cost module............... 146
Distributed common ground system......................... 147
Excalibur XM982.......................................... 148
Explosive and narcotic detection devices................. 148
Fire support technology improvement program.............. 148
Flexible display initiative.............................. 149
Gas-engine driven air conditioning system demonstrations. 149
Geospatial information decision support-single integrated
air picture............................................ 149
Handheld detection systems............................... 150
Human systems integration................................ 150
Hydrogen proton exchange membrane........................ 151
Hyperspectral longwave imager for the tactical
environment............................................ 151
Integrated digital environment service model............. 151
Joint Common Missile..................................... 152
JP-8 soldier fuel cell................................... 152
Lean munitions........................................... 153
Leishmaniasis diagnostics................................ 153
Light utility vehicle.................................... 153
Lightweight patient monitor with defibrillator........... 154
M5 high performance fiber for personnel armor systems.... 154
Mast mounted common remote stabilized sensor system...... 154
Medium tactical vehicle steering and suspension
development............................................ 155
Miniature sensor development for small and tactical
unmanned aerial vehicles............................... 155
Missile recycling center capability...................... 155
Modeling and analysis of the response of structures...... 156
Night vision advanced technology......................... 156
Night vision enhanced vision goggle...................... 156
Night vision system air dispensing capability............ 156
Non-emitting helicopter brownout situational awareness
demonstration.......................................... 157
Patient status monitor................................... 157
Portable and mobile emergency broadband system........... 157
Powdered metal compaction................................ 158
Pseudofolliculitis Barbae................................ 158
Rugged textile electronic garments....................... 158
Smart responsive nano-composites......................... 159
Strategic materials and strategic manufacturing
initiative............................................. 159
Tactical wheeled vehicle product improvement program..... 159
Titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering
research............................................... 160
Transparent Armor........................................ 160
UH-60 maintenance improvement program.................... 160
Navy Research, Development, Test & Evaluation................ 161
Overview................................................... 161
Items of Special Interest.................................. 173
Advanced mine detection program.......................... 173
Affordable towed array construction...................... 173
Affordable weapon system................................. 173
Air combat environment test and evaluation............... 174
Airborne reconnaissance systems.......................... 174
Aircraft carrier launch and recovery and support
equipment modernization................................ 175
Amorphous metal permanent magnet generator set........... 175
Aviation ship integration center......................... 175
Biomedical research imaging.............................. 176
Ceramic air deployed sensor.............................. 176
CH-53X heavy lift replacement............................ 176
Common submarine radio room.............................. 177
Consolidated undersea situational awareness.............. 177
Cooperative engagement capability........................ 178
Digital shipboard voice communications................... 178
Hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier.......................... 178
High temperature superconducting AC synchronous ship
propulsion motor....................................... 179
Joint integrated systems technology...................... 179
Marine expeditionary rifle squad......................... 180
Marine mammal research program........................... 180
Metrology................................................ 181
Multi-wavelength surface scanning biologics sensor....... 181
Polyimide macro electromechanical systems................ 181
``Quick Clot'' hemostatic agent......................... 182
Remote ocean surveillance system......................... 182
Retro-reflecting optical communications for special
operations............................................. 183
Special beam combining fiber lasers...................... 183
Superconducting direct current homopolar motor........... 183
Surface Warfare Communications Systems................... 184
Synthetic aperture sonar commonality..................... 184
Tactical E-field buoy development........................ 185
Use of out of service torpedo components for unmanned
undersea vehicle systems............................... 185
Virtual at-sea training initiative....................... 185
Warfare Protection Advanced Technology................... 186
Air Force Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation.......... 186
Overview................................................... 186
Items of Special Interest.................................. 198
Active feedback flow control technology.................. 198
Advanced engine starter/generator system prototype....... 198
Advanced spacecraft technology........................... 198
Aerospace propulsion..................................... 199
Aerospace propulsion and power technology................ 199
Affordable lightweight power supply development.......... 199
Applied research in computing enterprise services program 200
Assured access to space.................................. 200
B-2 development.......................................... 200
Ballistic missile technology............................. 201
Biostatic protective clothing............................ 201
C-130 airlift squadrons.................................. 201
Commercial communications bandwidth...................... 202
Cost analysis for space acquisitions..................... 202
Counter space systems.................................... 202
Defense research science................................. 203
Distributed mission interoperability toolkit program..... 203
Engineering tool improvement program..................... 203
F-16 block 30 AN/APG-68(V)10 radar upgrade............... 204
Fibrous three dimensional composites for conformal load-
bearing antenna structures............................. 204
Fixed-installation x-ray detection system................ 205
Global positioning system................................ 205
Global positioning system user equipment................. 205
High modulus polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber.............. 205
KC-135 replacement program............................... 206
Joint battlespace infosphere security inititive.......... 206
Laser threat warning attack reporting.................... 207
Lasers for advanced manufacturing and defense
applications........................................... 207
Low profile arresting gear............................... 207
Management of black and white space...................... 208
Manned reconnaissance systems............................ 209
Maui space surveillance system........................... 209
Metals affordability..................................... 209
Miniaturized targeting sensor development................ 209
Missile and space technical collection................... 210
Multi-disciplinary space technology...................... 210
Nanocrystalline diamond coating.......................... 210
Operationally responsive launch.......................... 211
Penetrator Study......................................... 211
Project Suter............................................ 211
Quick-donning oxygen mask................................ 212
Radio frequency identification rapid adoption
collaboration initiative............................... 212
Rocket systems launch program............................ 212
Satellite threat evaluation environment development...... 213
Single integrated space picture.......................... 213
Space based infra-red system high........................ 213
Space cadre.............................................. 214
Space radar.............................................. 214
Space situational awareness.............................. 216
Space technology......................................... 216
Transformational satellite communications system......... 216
Warfighter pocket computer development................... 217
Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation....... 218
Overview................................................... 218
Items of Special Interest.................................. 229
Accelerating intelligence analyst education and training. 229
Accelerating transition and fielding of advance
technologies for emerging critical operational needs of
special operations forces.............................. 229
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations............... 229
Advanced tactical laser program.......................... 229
Alternative Fuels........................................ 230
Army space and missile defense simulation upgrade........ 230
Asymmetric protocols for biological defense.............. 231
Ballistic missile defense................................ 231
Boost defense segment.................................. 232
Core................................................... 233
Midcourse defense segment.............................. 233
Missile Defense Advanced Technology.................... 234
Procurement funding and transition of ballistic missile
defense systems to services.......................... 234
Products............................................... 235
System interceptor..................................... 235
Technology............................................. 236
Terminal defense segment............................... 237
Testing................................................ 237
Business management and modernization program............ 238
Chemical/biological defense research, development, test
and evaluation program................................. 238
Chemical/biological defense basic research initiative.. 239
Chemical/biological defense applied research and
advanced technology development initiatives.......... 239
Chemical/biological defense advanced component
development and prototyping initiative............... 239
Combating terrorism technology support................... 240
Connectory for rapid identification of advanced
technology............................................. 240
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency................ 241
Defense integrated military human resources system....... 241
Defense Manufacturing Technology......................... 242
Defense message system................................... 242
Defense science and technology funding................... 243
Defense technical information center..................... 244
Emerging/critical interconnection technology............. 245
Event management visualization and data analysis......... 245
Force transformation..................................... 245
GeoSAR mission enhancements.............................. 246
Guardrail common sensor.................................. 246
Information assurance.................................... 246
Information systems security program..................... 247
Intelligence analyst education and training.............. 247
Large vehicle inspection using magnetic quadrupole
resonance.............................................. 247
M-291 skin decontamination kits.......................... 247
Man portable air defense system defense program.......... 248
Medical free electron laser.............................. 249
National Defense University technology pilot program..... 249
Operationally responsive space........................... 249
Project M shock mitigation technology.................... 250
Raincoat................................................. 250
Rapid acquisition incentives............................. 251
Scalable active memory processing engines................ 251
Special operations advanced technology development....... 251
Special Operations Command small weapons acquisition..... 252
Special Operations Command tactical tanker fleet......... 252
Special operations tactical systems development.......... 252
Special operations technology development................ 253
Tactical exploitation of innovative sensors.............. 253
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 253
Overview................................................... 253
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 256
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 256
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 256
Section 202--Amount for Defense Science and Technology..... 256
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 256
Section 211--Annual Comptroller General Report on Future
Combat Systems Program................................... 256
Section 212--Objective Requirements for Non-line-of-sight
Cannon System not to be Diminished to Meet Weight
Requirements............................................. 256
Section 213--Independent Analysis of Future Combat Systems
Manned Ground Vehicle Transportability Requirement....... 256
Section 214--Amounts for Armored Systems Modernization
Program.................................................. 257
Section 215--Limitation on Systems Development and
Demonstration of Manned Ground Vehicles Under Armored
Systems Modernization Program............................ 257
Section 216--Testing of Internet Protocol Version 6 by the
Naval Research Laboratory................................ 257
Section 217--Program to Design and Develop Next-generation
Nuclear Submarine........................................ 257
Section 218--Extension of Requirements Relating to
Management Responsibility for Naval Mine Countermeasures
Program.................................................. 258
Section 219--Single Joint Requirement for Heavy Lift
Rotorcraft............................................... 259
Section 220--Requirements for Development of Tactical
Communications Systems................................... 260
Section 221--Limitation on Systems Development and
Demonstration of Personnel Recovery Vehicle.............. 261
Section 222--Separate Program Element Required for Each
Significant Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Project.................................................. 261
Section 223--Small Business Innovation Research Phase III
Acceleration Pilot Program............................... 261
Section 224--Revised Requirements Relating to Submission of
Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan............ 262
Section 225--Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement
Program for Development of Innovative Shipbuilding
Technologies, Processes, and Facilities.................. 262
Section 226--Renewal of University National Oceanographic
Laboratory System Fleet.................................. 263
Section 227--Limitation on VXX Helicopter Program.......... 263
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs......................... 264
Section 231--Report on Capability and Costs for Operational
Boost/Ascent-Phase Missile Defense Systems............... 264
Section 232--Required Flight-Intercept Test of Ballistic
Missile Defense Ground-based Midcourse System............ 264
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 264
OVERVIEW....................................................... 264
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 292
Budget Request Adjustments--Readiness........................ 292
Base Services Related Supplies............................. 293
Capital Security Cost Share................................ 293
Civilian Intern Program.................................... 293
Distributed Mission Operations............................. 294
Eagle Vision............................................... 294
Expansion of Export Control Database....................... 294
Joint Initiatives.......................................... 294
Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan....................... 295
Military-to-Civilian Conversion Program.................... 295
Navy Ship Disposal......................................... 295
Operation Tempo Alignment to Account for the Global War on
Terrorism................................................ 296
Tank Sonic Dry Clean Filter Systems........................ 296
Utilities Privatization Implementation..................... 296
Information Technology Issues................................ 297
Overview................................................... 297
Adjustments to Information Technology...................... 297
Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery.................... 298
Enterprise License Agreement............................... 298
High Performance Computing Systems--``Supercomputers''..... 299
Live Instrumentation for Air and Missile Defense Units..... 299
Medical Qualification Tracking Visualization and Data
Analysis Project......................................... 299
Medical Information Systems Architecture................... 300
Network Device Authentication.............................. 300
Radio Frequency Identification in the Medical Supply Chain. 300
Servicewide Communication--General Fund Enterprise Business
Systems.................................................. 301
Other Matters................................................ 301
Arsenal Support Program Initiative......................... 301
Base Operating Support Budget Shortfalls................... 301
Budget Justification Documents for Operation and
Maintenance.............................................. 302
Evaluation of Department of Defense Policy Prohibiting the
Purchase of Technical Data to Accompany Acquired Systems. 302
Food Supplies.............................................. 303
Naval Oceanographic Command................................ 303
Pine Bluff Arsenal......................................... 303
Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle........................... 303
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 304
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 304
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 304
Section 302--Working Capital Funds......................... 304
Section 303--Other Department of Defense Programs.......... 304
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions......................... 304
Section 311--Revision of Required Content of Environmental
Quality Annual Report.................................... 304
Section 312--Pilot Project on Compatible Use Buffers on
Real Property Bordering Fort Carson, Colorado............ 304
Section 313--Repeal of Air Force Report on Military
Installation Encroachment Issues......................... 305
Section 314--Payment of Certain Private Cleanup Costs in
Connection with Defense Environmental Restoration........ 305
Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues....................... 305
Section 321--Proceeds From Cooperative Activities with Non-
Army Entities............................................ 305
Section 322--Public-Private Competition.................... 305
Section 323--Public-Private Competition Pilot Program...... 305
Section 324--Sense of Congress on Equitable Legal Standing
for Civilian Employees................................... 306
Subtitle D--Extension of Program Authorities................. 306
Section 331--Extension of Authority to Provide Logistics
Support and Services for Weapons Systems Contractors..... 306
Section 332--Extension and Revision of Temporary Authority
for Contractor Performance of Security Guard Functions... 306
Subtitle E--Utah Test and Training Range..................... 306
Section 341--Definitions................................... 306
Section 342--Military Operations and Overflights, Utah Test
and Training Range....................................... 306
Section 343--Planning Process for Federal Lands in the Utah
Test and Training Range.................................. 307
Section 344--Designation and Management of Cedar Mountain
Wilderness, Utah......................................... 307
Section 345--Identification of Additional bureau of Land
Management Land in Utah as Trust Land for Skull Valley
Band of Goshutes......................................... 307
Section 346--Relation to Other Lands and Laws.............. 307
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 307
Section 351--Codification and Revision of Limitation on
Modification of Major Items of Equipment Scheduled for
Retirement or Disposal................................... 307
Section 352--Limitation on Purchase of Investment Items
With Operation and Maintenance Funds..................... 307
Section 353--Provision of Department of Defense Support for
Certain Paralympics Sporting Events...................... 308
Section 354--Development and Explanation of Budget Models
for Base Operations Support Sustainment, and Facilities
Recapitalization......................................... 308
Section 355--Report on Department of the Army Programs for
Prepositioning of Equipment and Other Materiel........... 309
Section 356--Report Regarding Effect on Military Readiness
of Undocumented Immigrants Trespassing Upon Operational
Ranges................................................... 309
Section 357--Congressional Notification Requirements
Regarding Placement of Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities,
Pipelines, and Related Structures on Defense Lands....... 309
Section 358--Report Regarding Army and Air Force Exchange
System Management of Army Lodging........................ 309
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 310
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 310
Increases in Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
to be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 310
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 310
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 310
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 310
Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength
Minimum Levels........................................... 310
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 311
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 311
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 311
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 311
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2006 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Satus Technicians................................... 312
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
to be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 312
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 313
Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 313
Section 422--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................. 313
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 313
OVERVIEW....................................................... 313
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 314
Advanced Civil School Opportunities for Officers of the
Armed Forces............................................. 314
Comptroller General Review of Financial Management Programs 315
Confidentiality Definition for Domestic Violence........... 315
Coordinating the Activities of the Department of Defense,
the Department of Labor, and the Department of Veterans'
Affairs Intended to Assist Wounded and Injured Service
Members and Surviving Family Members of Military Deaths.. 316
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center......... 316
Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System......... 316
Family Support, Employment and Transition Assistance
Programs for Service Members and Their Families.......... 317
Foreign Area Officers...................................... 317
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal................ 318
Job Corps Recruits......................................... 318
Joint Advertising and Market Research...................... 319
List of Organizations and Agencies Available to Assist
Wounded and Injured Service Members and Surviving Family
Members of Military Deaths............................... 319
Military Spouse Education and Employment................... 320
Professional Development and Certification of Military
Security Personnel....................................... 320
Reserve Component Family Support Programs.................. 321
Review of Department of Defense and Military Service
Policies with Regard to the Assignment of Women.......... 321
Simultaneous Service of Family Members in a Combat Zone.... 322
State and Federal Agency Partnerships to Address the Post-
Mobilization Needs of Reservists and National Guardsmen
and Their Families....................................... 323
Study of Genocide and Its Cultural, Ethical and Moral
Impact................................................... 323
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 323
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 323
Section 501--Temporary Increase in Percentage Limits on
Reduction of Time-In-Grade Requirements for Retirement in
Grade Upon Voluntary Retirement.......................... 323
Section 502--Two-Year Renewal of Authority to reduce
Minimum Commissioned Service Requirement for Voluntary
Retirement as an Officer................................. 324
Section 503--Separation at Age 64 for Reserve Component
Senior Officers.......................................... 324
Section 504--Improved Administration of Transitions
Involving Officers in Senior General and Flag Officer
Positions................................................ 324
Section 505--Consolidation of Grade Limitations on Officer
Assignment and Insignia Practice Known as Frocking....... 324
Section 506--Authority for Designation of a General/Flag
Officer Position on the Joint Staff To be Held by Reserve
Component General or Flag Officer on Active Duty......... 325
Section 507--Authority to Retain Permanent Professors at
the Naval Academy Beyond 30 Years of Active Commissioned
Service.................................................. 325
Section 508--Authority for Appointment of Coast Guard Flag
Officer as Chief of Staff to the President............... 325
Section 509--Clarification of Time for Receipt of Statutory
Selection Board Communications........................... 325
Section 510--Standardization of Grade of Senior Dental
Officer of the Air Force With That of Senior Dental
Officer of the Army...................................... 326
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 326
Section 511--Use of Reserve Montgomery GI Bill Benefits and
Benefits for Mobilized Members of the Selected Reserve
and National Guard for Payments for Licensing or
Certification Tests...................................... 326
Section 512--Modifications to the New Reserve Education
Benefit for Certain Active Service in Support of
Contingency Operations................................... 326
Section 513--Military Technicians (Dual Status) Mandatory
Separation............................................... 326
Section 514--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....................................... 326
Section 515--Use of National Guard to Provide Military
Support to Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies for Domestic
Counter-Terrorism Activities............................. 326
Subtitle C--Education and Training........................... 327
Section 521--Repeal of Limitation on Amount of Financial
Assistance Under Reserve Officers' Training Corps
Scholarship Programs..................................... 327
Section 522--Increased Enrollment for Eligible Defense
Industry Employees in the Defense Product Development
Program at Naval Postgraduate School..................... 327
Section 523--Payment of Expenses to Obtain Professional
Credentials.............................................. 327
Section 524--Authority for National Defense University
Award of Degree of Master of Science in Joint Campaign
Planning and Strategy.................................... 327
Section 525--One-year Extension of Authority to Use
Appropriated Funds to Provide Recognition Items for
Recruitment and Retention of Certain Reserve Component
Personnel................................................ 328
Section 526--Report on Rationale and Plans of the Navy to
Provide Enlisted Members an Opportunity to Obtain
Graduate Degrees......................................... 328
Section 527--Increase in Annual Limit on Number of Reserve
Officers' Training Corps Scholarships Under Army Reserve
and National Guard Program............................... 328
Section 528--CAPSTONE Overseas Field Studies Trips to
People's Republic of China and Republic of China on
Taiwan................................................... 328
Section 529--Sense of Congress Concerning Establishment of
National College of Homeland Security.................... 328
Subtitle D--General Service Requirements..................... 329
Section 531--Uniform Enlistment Standards for the Armed
Forces................................................... 329
Section 532--Increase in Maximum Term of Original
Enlistment in Regular Component.......................... 329
Section 533--Members Completing Statutory Initial Military
Service Obligation....................................... 329
Section 534--Extension of Qualifying Service for Initial
Military Service Under National Call to Service Program.. 329
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to Casualties................... 329
Section 541--Requirement for Members of the Armed Forces to
Designate a Person to be Authorized to Direct the
Disposition of the Member's Remains...................... 329
Section 542--Enhanced Program of Casualty Assistance
Officers and Seriously Injured/III Assistance Officers... 330
Section 543--Standards and Guidelines for Department of
Defense Programs to Assist Wounded and Injured Members... 331
Section 544--Authority for Members on Active Duty With
Disabilities to Participate in Paralympic Games.......... 331
Subtitle F--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters.... 331
Section 551--Clarification of Authority of Military Legal
Assistance Counsel to Provide Military Legal Assistance
Without Regard to Licensing Requirements................. 331
Section 552--Use of Teleconferencing in Administrative
Sessions of Courts-Martial............................... 331
Section 553--Extension of Statute of Limitations for
Murder, Rape and Child Abuse Offenses Under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice................................. 332
Section 554--Offense of Stalking Under the Uniformed Code
of Military Justice...................................... 332
Section 555--Rape, Sexual Assault, and Other Sexual
Misconduct Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.... 332
Subtitle G--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for
Defense Dependents Education............................... 333
Section 561--Enrollment in Overseas Schools of Defense
Dependents' Education System of Children of Citizens or
Nationals of the United States Hired in Overseas Areas as
Full-time Department of Defense Employees................ 333
Section 562--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That
Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees................. 333
Section 563--Continuation of Impact Aid Assistance on
Behalf of Dependents of Certain Members Despite Change in
Status of Member......................................... 333
Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards........................... 333
Section 565--Cold War Victory Medal........................ 333
Section 566--Establishment of Combat Medevac Badge......... 334
Section 567--Eligibility for Operation Enduring Freedom
Campaign Medal........................................... 334
Subtitle I--Other Matters.................................... 334
Section 571--Extension of Waiver Authority of Secretary of
Education With Respect to Student Financial Assistance
During a War or Other Military Operation or National
Emergency................................................ 334
Section 572--Adoption Leave for Members of the Armed Forces
Adopting Children........................................ 334
Section 573--Report on Need for a Personnel Plan for
Linguists in the Armed Forces............................ 334
Section 574--Ground Combat and Other Exclusion Policies.... 335
TITLE VI--COMPENSATIONS AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS............. 335
OVERVIEW....................................................... 335
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 335
Defense Commissary Agency Produce Procurement Test......... 335
Hooked-on-Fishing/Not-on-Drugs Pilot Program............... 336
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 336
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 336
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2006.... 336
Section 602--Additional Pay for Permanent Military
Professors at United States Naval Academy with Over 36
Years Service............................................ 337
Section 603--Basic Pay Rates for Reserve Component Members
Selected to Attend Military Service Academy Preparatory
Schools.................................................. 337
Section 604--Clarification of Restriction on Compensation
for Correspondence Courses............................... 337
Section 605--Permanent Authority for Supplemental
Subsistence Allowance for Low-Income Members With
Dependents............................................... 337
Section 606--Basic Allowance for Housing for Reserve
Members.................................................. 337
Section 607--Overseas Cost of Living Allowance............. 337
Section 608--Income Replacement Payments for Reserves
Experiencing Extended and Frequent Mobilization for
Active Duty Service...................................... 338
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special Incentive Pays............... 338
Section 611--Extension or Resumption of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 338
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Certain Health Care Professionals........ 338
Section 613--Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities
for Nuclear Officers..................................... 339
Section 614--One-year Extension of Other Bonus and Special
Pay Authorities.......................................... 339
Section 615--Expansion of Eligibility of Dental Officers
for Additional Special Pay............................... 339
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate Authorized
for Hardship Duty Pay.................................... 339
Section 617--Flexible Payment of Assignment Incentive Pay.. 339
Section 618--Active-Duty Reenlistment Bonus................ 339
Section 619--Reenlistment Bonus for Members of Selected
Reserve.................................................. 339
Section 620--Combination of Affiliation and Accession
Bonuses for Service in the Selected Reserve.............. 339
Section 621--Eligibility Requirement for Prior Service
Enlistment Bonus......................................... 340
Section 622--Increase in Authorized Maximum Amount of
Enlistment Bonus......................................... 340
Section 623--Discretion of Secretary of Defense to
Authorize Retroactive Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger
Pay...................................................... 340
Section 624--Increase in Maximum Bonus Amount for Nuclear-
Qualified Officers Extending Period of Active Duty....... 340
Section 625--Increase in Maximum Amount of Nuclear Career
Annual Incentive Bonus for Nuclear-Qualified Officers
Trained While Serving as Enlisted Members................ 340
Section 626-Uniform Payment of Foreign Language Proficiency
Pay to Eligible Reserve Component Members and Regular
Component Members........................................ 340
Section 627--Retention Bonus for Members Qualified in
Certain Critical Skills or Satisfying Other Eligibility
Criteria................................................. 340
Section 628--Availability of Critical-Skills Accession
Bonus for Persons Enrolled in Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps Who are Obtaining Nursing Degrees......... 341
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowance.............. 341
Section 641--Authorized Absences of Members for Which
Lodging Expenses at Temporary Duty Location May Be Paid.. 341
Section 642--Extended Period for Selection of Home for
Travel and Transportation Allowances for Dependents of
Deceased Member.......................................... 341
Section 643--Transportation of Family Members Incident to
Repatriation of Members Held Captive..................... 341
Section 644--Increased Weight Allowances for Shipment of
Household Goods of Senior Noncommissioned Officers....... 341
Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits............... 342
Section 651--Monthly Disbursement to States of State Income
Tax Withheld From Retired or Retainer Pay................ 342
Section 652--Revision to Eligibility for Nonregular Service
Retirement After Establishing Eligibility for Regular
Retirement............................................... 342
Section 653--Denial of Military Funeral Honors in Certain
Cases.................................................... 342
Section 654--Child Support for Certain Minor Children of
Retirement-Eligible Members Convicted of Domestic
Violence Resulting in Death of Child's Other Parent...... 342
Section 655--Concurrent Receipt of Veterans Disability
Compensation and Military Retired Pay.................... 342
Section 656--Military Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiaries
Under Insurable Interest Coverage........................ 343
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits................................... 343
Section 661--Increase in Authorized Level of Supplies and
Services Procurement From Overseas Exchange Stores....... 343
Section 662--Requirements for Private Operation of
Commissary Store Functions............................... 343
Section 663--Provision of Information Technology Services
for Accommodations Provided by Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities for Wounded Members of the Armed Forces
and Their Families....................................... 343
Section 664--Provision of and Payment for Overseas
Transportation Services for Commissary and Exchange
Supplies................................................. 343
Section 665--Compensatory Time Off for Certain
Nonappropriated Fund Employees........................... 344
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 344
Section 671--Inclusion of Senior Enlisted Advisor for the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Among Senior
Enlisted Members of the Armed Forces..................... 344
Section 672--Special and Incentive Pays Considered for
Saved Pay Upon Appointment of Members as Officers........ 344
Section 673--Repayment of Unearned Portion of Bonuses,
Special Pays, and Educational Benefits................... 344
Section 674--Leave Accrual for Members Assigned to
Deployable Ships or Mobile Units or to Other Designated
Duty..................................................... 345
Section 675--Army Recruiting Pilot Program to Encourage
Members of the Army to Refer Other Persons for Enlistment 345
Section 676--Special Compensation for Reserve Component
Members Who Are Also Tobacco Farmers Adversely Affected
by Terms of Tobacco Quota Buyout......................... 345
TITLE VII--HEALTHCARE............................................ 345
OVERVIEW....................................................... 345
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 346
Comptroller General Study of the Viability of TRICARE
Standard................................................. 346
Cooperative Activities on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder... 346
Dental Readiness of the Reserve Components................. 347
Depleted Uranium........................................... 348
Eligibility for the Reimbursement of Travel Expenses
Incurred as a Result of Referral for Medical Specialty
Care..................................................... 348
Non-Monetary Benefits Package for the President of the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences..... 348
Respiratory Therapists to Serve as Commissioned Officers... 349
Review of TRICARE Policy Regarding Treatment of Other
Health Insurance......................................... 349
Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rates for Obstetrics,
Gynecology, Pediatrics and Mental Health................. 349
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 350
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program Improvements..................... 350
Section 701--Services of Mental Health Counselors.......... 350
Section 702--Additional Information Required by Surveys on
TRICARE Standard......................................... 350
Section 703--Enhancement of TRICARE Coverage for Members
Who Commit to Continued Service in the Selected Reserve.. 350
Section 704--Study and Plan Relating to Chiropractic Health
Care Services............................................ 351
Section 705--Surviving-Dependent Eligibility Under TRICARE
Dental Plan for Surviving Spouses Who Were on Active Duty
at Time of Death of Military Spouse...................... 352
Section 706--Exceptional Eligibility for TRICARE Prime
Remote................................................... 352
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 352
Section 711--Authority to Relocate Patient Safety Center;
Renaming MedTeams Program................................ 352
Section 712--Modification of Health Care Quality
Information and Technology Enhancement Reporting
Requirement.............................................. 352
Section 713--Correction to Eligibility of Certain Reserve
Officers for Military Health Care Pending Active Duty
Following Commissioning.................................. 353
Section 714--Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical
Positions to Civilian Medical Positions Until Submission
of Certification......................................... 353
Section 715--Clarification of Inclusion of Dental Care in
Medical Readiness Tracking and Health Surveillance
Program.................................................. 353
Section 716--Cooperative Outreach to Members and Former
Members of the Naval Service Exposed to Environmental
Factors Related to Sarcoidosis........................... 354
Section 717--Early Identification and Treatment of Mental
Health and Substance Abuse Disorders..................... 354
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 354
OVERVIEW....................................................... 354
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 356
Program Cost Increases..................................... 356
Procurement of Ball and Roller Bearings.................... 356
Report on Defense Ethics Programs.......................... 357
Requirements Identification................................ 357
Use of Streamlined Acquisition Procedures.................. 357
Utilization of Rapid Acquisition Authority................. 358
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 358
Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................. 358
Section 801--Requirement for Certification By Secretary of
Defense Before Major Defense Acquisition Program May
Proceed to Milestone B................................... 358
Section 802--Requirement for Analysis of Alternatives to
Major Defense Acquisition Programs....................... 359
Section 803--Authority for Secretary of Defense to Revise
Baseline for Major Defense Acquisition Programs.......... 360
Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 360
Section 811--Applicability of Statutory Executive
Compensation Cap Made Prospective........................ 360
Section 812--Use of Commercially Available Online Services
for Federal Procurement of Commercial Items.............. 361
Section 813--Contingency Contracting Corps................. 361
Section 814--Requirement for Contracting Operations To Be
Included in Interagency Planning Related to Stabilization
and Reconstruction....................................... 362
Section 815--Statement of Policy and Report Relating To
Contracting With Employers of Persons With Disabilities.. 362
Section 816--Study on Department of Defense Contracting
With Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by
Service-Disabled Veterans................................ 363
Section 817--Prohibition on Procurement From Beneficiaries
of Foreign Subsidies..................................... 363
Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures and Limitations................................. 363
Section 821--Increased Flexibility for Designation of
Critical Acquisition Positions in Defense Acquisition
Workforce................................................ 363
Section 822--Participation by Department Of Defense in
Acquisition Workforce Training Fund...................... 364
Section 823--Increase In Cost Accounting Standard Threshold 364
Section 824--Amendments to Domestic Source Requirements
Relating to Clothing Materials and Components Covered.... 364
Section 825--Rapid Acquisition Authority to Respond to
Defense Intelligence Community Emergencies............... 364
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 365
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 365
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 365
Section 901--Restoration of Parity in Pay Levels Among
Under Secretary Positions................................ 365
Section 902--Eligibility Criteria for Director of
Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center.... 365
Section 903--Consolidation and Standardization of
Authorities Relating to Department of Defense Regional
Centers for Security Studies............................. 365
Section 904--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 366
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 366
Section 911--Space Situational Awareness Strategy.......... 366
Section 912--Military Satellite Communications............. 366
Section 913--Operationally Responsive Space................ 366
Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Program................ 367
Section 921--Transfer to Secretary of the Army of
Responsibility for Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternatives Program..................................... 367
Section 922--Clarification of Cooperative Agreement
Authority Under Chemical Demilitarization Program........ 368
Subtitle D--Intelligence Related Matters..................... 368
Section 931--Department of Defense Strategy for Open-Source
Intelligence............................................. 368
Section 932--Comprehensive Inventory of Department of
Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Programs
and Projects............................................. 368
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 369
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 369
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 369
Overview................................................... 369
Items of Special Interest.................................. 369
Air Force tanker support................................. 369
Budget requests.......................................... 370
International support.................................... 370
Joint Task Force North................................... 370
Naval Reserve support.................................... 371
PACOM operations support................................. 371
Participating nation support............................. 371
Report on Department of Defense role in Afghanistan...... 371
Southwest Border fence................................... 372
Support to National Security Agency...................... 372
Financial Matters............................................ 373
Congressional Budget Justification Material................ 373
Other Activities............................................. 373
Civilian Casualties........................................ 373
Counter Terrorism Surveillance Technologies................ 373
Emergency Response Coordination............................ 374
Homeland Defense and Homeland Security..................... 374
Report on Casualties and Damage Caused by Improvised
Explosive Devices........................................ 375
Separation and Coordination of Information Operations and
Public Affairs........................................... 375
Update Future Years Defense Program-Modify Strategic Forces
Major Force Program to Reflect New Triad................. 376
Update to and Guidance for the National Security Strategy.. 376
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 377
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 377
Section 1001--Transfer Authority........................... 377
Section 1002--Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 2005..................................... 377
Section 1003--Increase in Fiscal Year 2005 General Transfer
Authority................................................ 377
Section 1004--Reports on Feasibility and Desirability of
Capital Budgeting for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. 377
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 377
Section 1011--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Seattle, Washington 377
Section 1012--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Jacksonville,
Florida.................................................. 377
Section 1013--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Port Arthur, Texas. 378
Section 1014--Transfer of USS Iowa......................... 378
Section 1015--Transfer of Ex-USS Forrest Sherman........... 378
Section 1016--Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built
Vessels.................................................. 378
Subtitle C--Counter-drug Activities.......................... 378
Section 1021--Extension of Department of Defense Authority
to Support Counter-Drug Civilities....................... 378
Section 1022--Resumption of Reporting Requirement Regarding
Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign
Counter-Drug Activities.................................. 379
Section 1023--Clarification of Authority for Joint Task
Forces to Support Law Enforcement Agencies Conduction
Counter-Terrorism Activities............................. 379
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Homeland Security............ 379
Section 1031--Responsibilities of Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense Relating to Nuclear,
Chemical, and Biological Emergency Response.............. 379
Section 1032--Testing of Preparedness for Emergencies
Involving Nuclear, Radiological, Chemical, Biological,
and High-Yield Explosives Weapons........................ 379
Section 1033--Department of Defense Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives Response
Teams.................................................... 380
Section 1034--Repeal of Department of Defense Emergency
Response Assistance Program.............................. 380
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 380
Section 1041--Commission on the Long-Term Implementation of
the New Strategic Posture of the United States........... 380
Section 1042--Reestablishment of EMP Commission............ 381
Section 1043--Modernization of Authority Relating to
Security of Defense Property and Facilities.............. 381
Section 1044--Revision of Department of Defense
Counterintelligence Polygraph Program.................... 381
Section 1045--Repeal of Requirement for Report to Congress
Regarding Global Strike Capability....................... 382
Section 1046--Technical, Clerical, and Conforming
Amendments............................................... 382
Section 1047--Deletion of Obsolete Definitions in Titles 10
and 32, United States Code............................... 382
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL............... 382
OVERVIEW....................................................... 382
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 383
Section 1101--Extension of Eligibility to Continue Federal
Employee Health Benefits................................. 383
Section 1102--Extension of Department of Defense Voluntary
Reduction in Force Authority............................. 383
Section 1103--Extension of Authority to Make Lump Sum
Severance Payments....................................... 383
Section 1104--Authority for Heads of Agencies to Allow
Shorter Length of Required Service by Federal Employees
After Completion of Training............................. 383
Section 1105--Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on Total
Compensation Paid to Federal Civilian Employees.......... 384
Section 1106--Transportation of Family Members Incident to
Repatriation of Federal Employees Held Captive........... 384
Section 1107--Permanent Extension of Science, Mathematics,
and Research for Transformation Defense Scholarship
Program.................................................. 384
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS..................... 384
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 384
Annual Report on Threat Posed to the United States by
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Ballistic Missiles, and
Cruise Missiles.......................................... 384
Report on Implementation of the American Servicemembers'
Protection Act........................................... 385
Report on Military and Defense Aspects of the Proliferation
Security Initiative...................................... 385
Security and Stabilization Assistance...................... 386
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 386
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 386
Section 1201--Extension of Humanitarian and Civic
Assistance Provided to Host Nations in Conjunction with
Military Operations...................................... 386
Section 1202--Commanders' Emergency Response Program....... 386
Section 1203--Military Educational Exchanges Between Senior
Officers and Officials of the United States and Taiwan... 387
Section 1204--Modification of Geographic Restriction Under
Bilateral and Regional Cooperation Programs for Payment
of Certain Expenses of Defense Personnel of Developing
Countries................................................ 387
Section 1205--Authority for Department of Defense to Enter
Into Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreements With
Regional Organizations of Which the United States is not
a Member................................................. 388
Section 1206--Two-Year Extension of Authority for Payment
of Certain Administrative Services and Support for
Coalition Liaison Officers............................... 388
Subtitle B--Nonproliferation Matters and Countries of Concern 388
Section 1211--Report on Acquisition by Iran of Nuclear
Weapons.................................................. 388
Section 1212--Procurement Sanction Against Foreign Persons
that Transfer Certain Defense Articles and Services to
the People's Republic of China........................... 389
Section 1213--Prohibition on Procurements From Communist
Chinese Military Companies............................... 390
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 390
Section 1221--Purchase of Weapons Overseas for Force
Protection Purposes...................................... 390
Section 1222--Requirement for Establishment of Certain
Criteria Applicable to On-Going Global Posture Review.... 390
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION............................................ 391
OVERVIEW....................................................... 391
Funding Overview............................................. 391
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 391
Border Security............................................ 391
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 392
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs and Funds....................................... 392
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 392
Section 1303--Authority to Obligate Weapons of Mass
Destruction Proliferation Prevention Funds for Nuclear
Weapons Storage Security................................. 393
Section 1304--Extension of Limited Waiver of Restrictions
on Use of Funds for Threat Reduction in States of the
Former Soviet Union...................................... 393
Section 1305--Report on Elimination of Impediments to
Nuclear Threat-Reduction and Non-Proliferation Programs
in the Russian Federation................................ 393
TITLE XIV--CONTRACT DISPUTE ENHANCEMENT.......................... 394
OVERVIEW....................................................... 394
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 394
Subtitle A--General Provisions............................... 394
Section 1411--Definitions.................................. 394
Subtitle B--Establishment of Civilian and Defense Boards of
Contract Appeals........................................... 394
Section 1421--Establishment................................ 394
Section 1422--Membership................................... 395
Section 1423--Chairmen..................................... 395
Section 1424--Rulemaking Authority......................... 396
Section 1425--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 396
Subtitle C--Functions of Defense and Civilian Boards of
Contract Appeals........................................... 396
Section 1431--Contract Disputes............................ 396
Section 1432--Enhanced Access for Small Business........... 396
Section 1433--Applicability to Certain Contracts........... 396
Subtitle D--Transfers and Transition, Savings, and Conforming
Provisions................................................. 397
Section 1441--Transfer and Allocation of Appropriations and
Personnel................................................ 397
Section 1442--Terminations and Savings Provisions.......... 397
Section 1443--Contract Disputes Authority of Boards........ 397
Section 1444--References to Agency Boards of Contract
Appeals.................................................. 397
Section 1445--Conforming Amendments........................ 397
Subtitle E--Effective Date; Regulations and Appointment of
Chairmen................................................... 398
Section 1451--Effective Date............................... 398
Section 1452--Regulations.................................. 398
Section 1453--Appointment of Chairmen of Defense Board and
Civilian Board........................................... 398
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF INCREASED COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI
FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM......................... 398
OVERVIEW....................................................... 398
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS................................ 398
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 405
Budget Realignment......................................... 405
Procurement................................................ 405
Operations and Maintenance................................. 405
Military Personnel......................................... 406
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 406
Subtitle A--General Increases................................ 406
Section 1501--Purpose...................................... 406
Section 1502--Army Procurement............................. 406
Section 1503--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement............ 406
Section 1504--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement.......... 406
Section 1505--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide Activities.................................. 406
Section 1506--Operation and Maintenance.................... 406
Section 1507--Defense Working Capital Funds................ 406
Section 1508--Defense Health Program....................... 406
Section 1509--Military Personnel........................... 407
Section 1510--Iraq Freedom Fund............................ 407
Section 1511--Classified Programs.......................... 407
Section 1512--Treatment as Additional Authorization........ 407
Section 1513--Transfer Authority........................... 407
Section 1514--Availability of Funds........................ 407
Subtitle B--Personnel Provisions............................. 407
Section 1521--Increase in Active Army and Marine Corps
Strength Levels.......................................... 407
Section 1522--Additional Authority for Increases of Army
and Marine Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal
Years 2007 Through 2009.................................. 407
Section 1523--Military Death Gratuity Enhancement.......... 408
Section 1524--Permanent Prohibition Against Requiring
Certain Injured Members to Pay for Meals Provided by
Military Treatment Facilities............................ 408
Section 1525--Permanent Authority To Provide Travel and
Transportation Allowances for Dependents to Visit
Hospitalized Members Injured in Combat Operation or
Combat Zone.............................................. 408
Section 1526--Permanent Increase in Length of Time
Dependents of Certain Deceased Members May Continue to
Occupy Military Family Housing or Receive Basic Allowance
for Housing.............................................. 409
Section 1527--Availability of Special Pay for Members
During Rehabilitation From Combat-Related Injuries....... 409
Section 1528--Allowance to Cover Monthly Deduction From
Basic Pay for Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
Coverage for Members Serving in Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom...................... 409
Subtitle C--Matters Involving Support Provided by Foreign
Nations.................................................... 410
Section 1531--Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations
for Support Provided to United States Military Operations 410
TITLE XVI--CONTRACTORS ON THE BATTLEFIELD REGULATORY ACT......... 410
OVERVIEW....................................................... 410
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 410
Section 1601--Short Title.................................. 410
Section 1602--Findings..................................... 410
Section 1603--Definitions.................................. 411
Section 1604--Requirements for Commanders of Combatant
Commands Relating to Contractors Accompanying and Not
Accompanying the Force................................... 411
Section 1605--Requirements for Contractors Relating to
Possession of Weapons.................................... 412
Section 1606--Battlefield Accountability................... 412
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 413
PURPOSE........................................................ 413
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.............. 413
TITLE XXI--ARMY.................................................. 431
SUMMARY........................................................ 431
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 431
Planning and Design........................................ 431
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 431
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 431
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 431
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 431
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 432
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2004 Projects........................ 432
TITLE XXII--NAVY................................................. 432
SUMMARY........................................................ 432
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 433
Planning and Design........................................ 433
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 433
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 433
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 433
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 433
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 433
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2004 Projects........................ 433
Section 2206--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2005 Projects........................ 433
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE........................................... 434
SUMMARY........................................................ 434
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 434
Planning and Design........................................ 434
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 435
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 435
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 435
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 435
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 435
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES..................................... 435
SUMMARY........................................................ 435
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 436
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 436
Section 2402--Energy Conservation Projects................. 436
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 436
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM...................................................... 436
SUMMARY........................................................ 436
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 436
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 436
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 437
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 437
SUMMARY........................................................ 437
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 437
Planning and Design, Army National Guard................... 437
Planning and Design, Air National Guard.................... 437
Planning and Design, Army Reserve.......................... 438
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 438
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 438
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS.......... 438
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 438
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to be Specified by Law.......................... 438
Section 2702--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2003 Projects....................................... 438
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2002 Projects....................................... 439
Section 2704--Effective Date............................... 439
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS................................. 439
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 439
Alternative Methods of Providing Access to Fitness
Facilities for Service Members and Dependents............ 439
Employment and Training Programs to Assist Communities
Affected by Base Realignment and Closure Actions......... 440
Facilities-Related Reporting Requirements.................. 440
Facility Projects During the Base Realignment and Closure
Process.................................................. 441
Inclusion of Analysis of Excess Capacity at Military
Medical Facilities in GAO Report on DOD's Process and
Recommendations for the 2005 BRAC Round.................. 441
Medical Treatment Facility Construction.................... 442
Use of Authorities to Privatize Unaccompanied Housing...... 443
Use of Electronic Marking Systems to Document Underground
Infrastructure Systems................................... 443
Use of Temporary Facilities to Support Long-Term Military
Requirements............................................. 443
Utilities Privatization.................................... 444
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 445
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes.......................................... 445
Section 2801--Modification of Congressional Notification
Requirements for Certain Military Construction Activities 445
Section 2802--Improve Availability and Timeliness of
Department of Defense Information Regarding Military
Construction and Family Housing Accounts and Activities.. 445
Section 2803--Expansion of Authority to Convey Property at
Military Installations to Support Military Construction.. 446
Section 2804--Effect of Failure to Submit Required Report
on Need for General and Flag Officers Quarters in
National Capital Region.................................. 446
Section 2805--One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited
Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for
Construction Projects Outside the United States.......... 446
Section 2806--Clarification of Moratorium on Certain
Improvements at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico............... 447
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 447
Section 2811--Consolidation of Department of Defense Land
Acquisition Authorities and Limitations on Use of Such
Authorities.............................................. 447
Section 2812--Report on Use of Utility System Conveyance
Authority and Temporary Suspension of Authority Pending
Report................................................... 447
Section 2813--Authorized Military Uses of Papago Park
Military Reservation, Phoenix, Arizona................... 448
Subtitle C--Base Closure and Realignment..................... 448
Section 2821--Additional Reporting Requirements Regarding
Base Closure Process and Use of Department of Defense
Base Closure Accounts.................................... 448
Section 2822--Termination of Project Authorizations for
Military Installations Approved for Closure in 2005 Round
of Base Realignments and Closures........................ 448
Section 2823--Expanded Availability of Adjustment and
Diversification Assistance for Communities Adversely
Affected by Mission Realignments in Base Closure Process. 448
Section 2824--Sense of Congress Regarding Consideration of
National Defense Industrial Base Interests During Base
Closure and Realignment Commission Review of Department
of Defense Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations.. 448
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 449
Part I--Army Conveyances..................................... 449
Section 2831--Modification of Land Conveyance, Engineer
Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia................... 449
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
Bothell, Washington...................................... 449
Part II--Navy Conveyances.................................... 449
Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station,
Miramar, San Diego, California........................... 449
Part III--Air Force Conveyances.............................. 449
Section 2851--Purchase of Build-To-Lease Family Housing,
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska........................... 449
Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Air Force Property,
Jacksonville, Arkansas................................... 449
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 450
Section 2861--Lease Authority, Army Heritage and Education
Center, Carlisle, Pennsylvania........................... 450
Section 2862--Redesignation of McEntire Air National Guard
Station, South Carolina, as McEntire Joint National Guard
Base..................................................... 450
Section 2863--Assessment of Water Needs for Presidio of
Monterey and Ord Military Community...................... 450
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................... 450
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 450
OVERVIEW....................................................... 450
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 463
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 463
Overview................................................... 463
Weapons Activities......................................... 463
Directed Stockpile Work.................................. 463
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator........................ 463
Reliable Replacement Warhead Program................... 463
Stockpile Stewardship Campaigns.......................... 465
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities............... 467
Environmental Projects and Operations.................... 467
Safeguards and Security.................................. 468
National Nuclear Security Administration Advisory
Committee.............................................. 469
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 469
Nonproliferation and Verification Research and
Development............................................ 469
International Materials Protection and Cooperation....... 470
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production........ 470
Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility................................ 470
Thorium Fuel Project..................................... 471
Global Threat Reduction Initiative....................... 472
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 473
Overview................................................... 473
Environmental Management Authority Transfer................ 473
Hanford Defense Site Acceleration Completion Activities.... 473
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............................. 474
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 475
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 475
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 475
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Management............. 475
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 475
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 475
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 475
Section 3111--Reliable Replacement Warhead Program......... 475
Section 3112--Report on Assistance for Comprehensive
Inventory of Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons........ 475
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 476
OVERVIEW....................................................... 476
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST..................................... 476
Waste Treatment Plant...................................... 476
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION.......................................... 476
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 476
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE......................... 476
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 476
Sale of Strategic and Critical Materials................... 476
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION.......................................... 477
Section 3301--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile
Funds.................................................... 477
Section 3302--Revisions of Fiscal Year 1999 Authority to
Dispose of Certain Materials in the National Defense
Stockpile................................................ 477
Section 3303--Revision of Fiscal Year 2000 Authority to
Dispose of Certain Materials in the National Defense
Stockpile................................................ 477
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 477
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 477
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 477
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 477
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 477
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Maritime
Administration for Fiscal Year 2006...................... 477
Section 3502--Payments for State and Regional Maritime
Academies................................................ 478
Section 3503--Improvements to the Maintenance and Repair
Reimbursement Pilot Program.............................. 478
Section 3504--Tank Vessel Construction Assistance.......... 479
Section 3505--Improvements to the Maritime Administration
Vessel Disposal Program.................................. 479
Departmental Data................................................ 480
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 480
Committee Position............................................... 481
Communications From Other Committees............................. 481
Fiscal Data...................................................... 491
Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 491
Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 491
Oversight Findings............................................... 492
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 492
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 493
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 493
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 494
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 503
Additional Views................................................. 504
Additional views of Ike Skelton, Lane Evans, John Spratt, Marty
Meehan, Loretta Sanchez, Silvestre Reyes, Jim Cooper,
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Jim Langevin, Steve Israel, Tim Ryan,
Ellen O. Tauscher, Neil Abercrombie, Adam Smith, Robert A.
Brady, Vic Snyder, Rick Larsen, Mark E. Udall, Susan A.
Davis, Solomon P. Ortiz, Kendrick B. Meek, Mike McIntyre,
Robert E. Andrews, G.K. Butterfield, Gene Taylor............. 504
Additional views of Ike Skelton, Vic Snyder, John Spratt,
Silvestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez, Ellen O. Tauscher, Rick
Larsen, Lane Evans, Dan Boren, Kendrick B. Meek, Jim Cooper,
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Jim Langevin, Steve Israel, Marty
Meehan, Neil Abercrombie, Adam Smith, Robert A. Brady, Mark
E. Udall, Susan A. Davis, Solomon P. Ortiz, Tim Ryan, Robert
E. Andrews, G.K. Butterfield................................. 508
Additional views of Ike Skelton, Silvestre Reyes, John Spratt,
Loretta Sanchez, Ellen O. Tauscher, Marty Meehan, Neil
Abercrombie, Tim Ryan, Kendrick B. Meek, Adam Smith, Robert
A. Brady, Vic Snyder, Rick Larsen, Robert E. Andrews, Lane
Evans, Jim Langevin, Steve Israel, Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
Mark E. Udall, Susan A. Davis, Solomon P. Ortiz, Gene Taylor,
G.K. Butterfield............................................. 511
Additional views of Terry Everett, Curt Weldon, and Mike D.
Rogers....................................................... 515
Additional views of John M. Spratt, Jr......................... 516
Additional views of Jim Gibbons................................ 518
Additional views of K. Michael Conaway......................... 519
Additional views of Susan A. Davis............................. 521
Dissenting views of Cynthia McKinney........................... 522
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 109-89
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
_______
May 20, 2005.--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. 1815]
[Includes committee cost estimate]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1815) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006,
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 reflect 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. 1815. 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 2006 for procurement and for research, development, test
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2006: (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 2006 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
2006 for the Department of Energy national security programs;
(8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2006 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 $441.8 billion
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2006.
Of this amount, the President requested $421.1 billion for the
Department of Defense, including $12.1 billion for military
construction and family housing. The defense budget request for
fiscal year 2006 also included $16.4 billion for Department of
Energy national security programs and the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall level of $441.6 billion
in budget authority. This amount represents an increase of
approximately $19.5 billion from the amount authorized for
appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
In addition, the committee recommends $49.1 billion in
budget authority for the Department of Defense for fiscal year
2006, in addition to amounts otherwise authorized by this Act,
to provide funds for additional costs due to Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
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 2006 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. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 recognizes the United States is a nation
entering its fifth year in the global war on terrorism (GWOT).
During that time, the sacrifices of the men and women of the
United States armed forces have contributed to a number of
critical victories. In the past year alone, the United States
has witnessed democratically elected governments taking power
in Afghanistan and Iraq, the swearing in of Iraq's first
democratically elected assembly and cabinet in over thirty
years, an Iraqi security force currently numbering over 160,000
and growing rapidly, plans to transition responsibility for
internal security operations to the Iraqis by late 2005, and
the capture of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the alleged third most
senior member of al Qaeda. While these developments are highly
encouraging, the committee believes that the GWOT will be long
and success will require a continuing national commitment.
The committee's top priority is ensuring that the men and
women of the armed forces receive the best equipment, weapons
systems, and training available to accomplish their mission. To
that end, H.R. 1815 would address the structural obstacles that
the Department of Defense (DOD) must overcome to expeditiously
meet requirements established by combatant commanders engaged
in continuing combat and post-conflict operations. While the
committee is proud of the adaptability and resilience of our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, it believes that more
can be done to rapidly field the equipment and systems required
to meet the needs of the 21st century military.
Military personnel
The committee continues to be concerned with the size of
the force and recommends measures to ensure the size of our
armed forces is sufficient to sustain our efforts in the GWOT.
For fiscal year 2006, the committee recommends additional
active duty growth of 30,000 in the Army and 4,000 in the
Marine Corps above the budget request. These recommendations
would bring the Army end strength to 512,400 and the Marine
Corps to 179,000. In addition, the committee recommends
providing the authority to the Secretary of Defense to grow the
Army to a total force of 532,400 and the Marine Corps to
184,000.
Recognizing the continuing sacrifices of our armed forces,
the committee recommends making permanent several wartime-
related pay and benefits that were temporarily established in
the recently enacted Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005
(Public Law 109-13). Principal among these wartime related
measures is the increase in death gratuity to $100,000 and an
expansion of travel authorizations for families of service
members hospitalized in the United States.
Increasing costs of major procurement programs
The committee is deeply concerned with the skyrocketing
costs of weapon systems that cannot be explained by inflation
or by reduced economies of scale. In many instances, these
increases result from the addition of costly, and often
unneeded, requirements to the Department's most expensive
platforms. To affect the changes proposed in this bill, both
the Department and Congress must accept that current DOD
acquisition culture and processes are no longer affordable.
Rampant increases in costs across the procurement spectrum
are widely evident. In the fourth quarter of calendar year
2004, the Department reported that costs of major procurement
programs increased from $1.37 trillion to $1.47 trillion, a 7.3
percent gain. These costs reflect actual program costs to date,
as well as future anticipated costs. In response, the
Department must take aggressive action to contain procurement
costs. Individual platform designs must seek to achieve a
critical balance between maximizing capability and ensuring
that the Department can afford to procure a sufficient quantity
of platforms to maintain a global military presence.
The committee believes that one of the primary reasons for
the increase in weapon systems procurement costs is the
proliferation of programs dependent on immature technology.
Therefore, the system development and demonstration phase of
the acquisition process should not be entered until mature
technologies are demonstrated to ensure that costs do not grow
and schedules are not delayed.
The committee believes that the Department should examine
all platforms performing a specific mission to determine if it
is affordable across the joint battlefield. Joint doctrine
requires the Department to minimize duplication of efforts, to
avoid procuring redundant systems, and to facilitate
interoperability. The committee believes that joint operations
will dominate the battlefield in the future. While the desire
of military departments to develop independent weapons
platforms is longstanding, this approach to force structure is
no longer sustainable. The committee believes that this
fundamental concept should be fully incorporated into DOD's
acquisition process.
The committee is particularly concerned by the Navy's
rising shipbuilding costs and by recent statements from the
Navy's officials that they are uncertain about what to do about
the problem. With an annual shipbuilding budget of
approximately $10.0 billion, the committee is concerned with
the amount of capability and military presence that can be
maintained with new weapons systems. For example, the proposed
Future Major Surface Combatant (DD(X)), has price estimates of
over $3.0 billion per ship. The committee is also concerned
with the effect the Navy's procurement strategy will have on
the shipbuilding industrial base. These rising costs threaten
to undermine the Navy's shipbuilding program, putting future
naval capabilities in jeopardy.
This year, the committee asks the fundamental question of
how the Navy's appetite for ``mega-ships'' will affect the
industrial base and sustain production rates necessary to
deploy an operational fleet of sufficient size to meet global
commitments. The committee believes that early designs for many
platforms successfully addressed the missions of the global war
on terrorism by being light, agile and cost-effective. However,
the committee notes with dismay that costly features
redundantly supported by other platforms and systems are now
contributing to spiraling program costs.
The committee is also concerned with the rising costs of
the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) and Modularity programs.
The combined cost of these programs currently exceeds $99.0
billion in the Future Years Defense Program, an amount well
above the expected Army funding profile. The committee notes
that between fiscal years 2004 and 2009, the estimated cost of
FCS rose from $19.0 billion to $30.3 billion.
In addition, the committee believes that over the past
decade the acquisition of space systems has been plagued by
cost overruns and schedule delays. The lack of enforcement of
internal DOD procurement rules results in systemic problems
leading to multiple space acquisition failures. These problems
include reliance on immature technology, overdependence on
contractors for program management, and a lack of government
systems engineering and cost analysis expertise. As a result,
H.R. 1815 supports action that lowers the technical risk level
associated with space programs and focuses on efforts that
improve cost estimates, space acquisition workforce issues, and
acquisition processes.
Acquisition reform
The committee believes that the rampant increases in the
costs of major defense acquisition programs result, in large
part, from the failure of the Department to comply with
internal regulations and directives related to acquisition. The
intent of DOD Directive 5000.1 ``The Defense Acquisition
System'' and DOD Instruction 5000.2 ``Operation of the Defense
Acquisition System'' is to capture a series of ``best
practices'' derived from years of experience in major systems
procurement activities. In particular, DOD Instruction 5000.2
lists numerous criteria designed to ensure technological
maturity, approved requirements, and funding for a major
defense acquisition program prior to Milestone B approval,
which serves as the official start of an acquisition program
and entry into the System Development and Demonstration (SDD)
phase of the acquisition life-cycle. The committee is concerned
that the Department, in large part, ignores these regulations
in a rush to advance major defense acquisition programs toward
the increased funding associated with the SDD phase of
procurement. In fact, the committee is concerned that such
behavior has become institutionalized in the Department.
Therefore, the committee recommends the implementation of a
series of procedural steps to ensure that entry into the SDD
phase is not premature.
Beginning in fiscal year 2006, H.R. 1815 would require the
Department of Defense to evaluate and monitor changes to its
original baseline cost estimates for major defense acquisition
programs (MDAPs) continually and to provide the Secretary of
Defense and Congress alternatives to pursuing a system that
proves to be technologically unachievable or fiscally
impractical. H.R. 1815 would hold the Department more
accountable for the significant decision to enter the
acquisition process for an MDAP and establish strict standards
related to accounting and cost management.
The committee is also concerned with the ability of the
Department to react rapidly to urgent requirements issued by
operational combatant commanders. Recently, the Department took
over six months to utilize the rapid acquisition authority
created in section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
This authority allows the Secretary ``to waive any provision of
law, policy, directive, or regulation'' to purchase the
equipment that is ``urgently needed to eliminate a combat
capability deficiency that has resulted in combat fatalities.''
Between approval of this authority and its utilization in late
April 2005 the committee received volumes of information and
testimony in hearings describing critical shortfalls for
requirements such as armored High Mobility Multi-Wheeled
Vehicles; body armor, including small arms protective insert
plates; and, improvised explosive device jammers.
In response to these delays, and to other perceived
deficiencies in DOD's ability to rapidly meet the needs of
today's warfighter, the bill would require the Secretary to
create a standing contingency contracting corps. This corps
would operate under joint doctrine in wartime and peacetime to
meet the needs of commanders on the battlefield. The committee
believes that this corps will develop the expertise necessary
to utilize such emergency authorities as the section 811
authority, as well as other laws, regulations and directives
related to contracting in a combat, post-conflict, or
reconstruction environment. The committee believes that this
corps will facilitate the rapid acquisition of critically
needed goods and services ultimately improving the process by
which the needs of the warfighter are met.
Bridge supplemental
The committee recommends authorization of $49.1 billion in
funds to be appropriated, and made available upon enactment of
this Act, 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 the 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 High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), tactical wheeled vehicle
recapitalization, and modernization of the most heavily used
vehicles in OIF and OEF, night vision devices, and improvised
explosive device jammers. 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 three years, the committee has recommended increases in
the active component manpower to sustain the full range of
capabilities required for the global war on terrorism. The
committee recommends funding an active component increase of
30,000 for the Army and 4,000 for the Marine Corps above the
budget request and supports benefit increases to the death
gratuity and Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 results from hearings
that began on February 9, 2005, and that were completed on
April 15, 2005. The full committee conducted seven sessions. In
addition, a total of 19 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 2006 contained $78.0
billion for procurement. This represents a $3.8 billion
increase from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2005.
The committee recommends authorization of $79.1 billion, an
increase of $1.1 billion from the fiscal year 2006 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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 2006 contained $2.8
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $2.9 billion, an increase of $60.5
million, for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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 $580.4 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 (APU) 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 National Guard Apache and
Longbow aircraft.
High-altitude Army National Guard aviation training site
The committee is aware that the High-altitude Army National
Guard (ARNG) Aviation Training Site (HAATS) at Eagle, Colorado,
operated by the Colorado Army National Guard, is the primary
site for training military aviators operations in all seasoned
weather conditions in hostile, high altitude, power limited
environments. The training site currently uses UH-1 Huey and
OH-58 Kiowa aircraft that are being phased out of the inventory
within the future years defense plan. Concurrently, deployments
of the Colorado Army National Guard limit the ability of HAATS
instructor pilots to obtain the number of flying hours
necessary to maintain their instructor status.
The committee is concerned that the combination of these
factors could degrade HAATS ability to train pilots in the
kinds of high altitude operations that are increasingly
relevant in military operations. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to evaluate the type of aircraft
available in the Army's inventory most suitable to the
performance of HAATS mission, and the most appropriate schedule
for assigning these aircraft to HAATS. The Secretary of the
Army is directed to provide a report of his findings to the
congressional defense committees no later than December 15,
2005.
UH-60 aircraft wireless intercom system upgrade
The budget request contained $29.4 million for aircrew
integrated systems, but included no funds for procurement of
non-encrypted aircraft wireless intercom system (AWIS) upgrades
for active and reserve UH-60 medical evacuation (MEDEVAC)
helicopters.
The committee notes there is no integrated or qualified
wireless communication system on board UH-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 for
non-encrypted AWIS for active and reserve UH-60 MEDEVAC
helicopters.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.3
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.2 billion, a decrease of $27.9 million, for
fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Advanced precision kill weapon system
The budget request contained $27.9 million for the
procurement of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System
(APKWS).
The committee notes that the APKWS program has been
curtailed by the Army. Subsequently, the Army Program Executive
Office for Missiles and Space has directed a contract
recompetition for APKWS.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funding for
procurement of the APKWS, a decrease of $27.9 million.
Patriot system reporting requirements
The Patriot system provides defense against short to medium
range theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned
aerial vehicles, and other air breathing threats as part of the
Ballistic Missile Defense System. The committee notes that the
congressional defense committees provided the Department of the
Army with $43.4 million in reprogrammed funds in fiscal year
2004 to correct Patriot system deficiencies that contributed to
fratricide incidents in Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to
the Department of the Army, these corrective actions are
scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2007. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2006, and
annually thereafter until all corrective actions are complete,
on the status of completing these Patriot system corrective
actions. This report should include the results of operational
tests conducted to verify that corrective actions have been
satisfactorily tested as well as any findings of additional
problems that require correction, and funding proposed to
address these deficiencies.
The committee also notes that a January 2005 Defense
Science Board Task Force report on Patriot system performance
highlighted the need for the Department of Defense to identify
and correct identification friend or foe (IFF) problems and to
improve situational awareness of U.S. air defense systems in
order to prevent future fratricide incidents. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on its plan to identify and
correct IFF deficiencies and to improve situational awareness
of U.S. air defense systems by February 1, 2006. This report
should also provide recommendations on how to improve
situational awareness of air defense systems when working with
allies and the cost associated with correcting these
deficiencies.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.7
billion for Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The
committee recommends authorization of $1.6 billion, a decrease
of $58.2 million, for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Abrams tank modernization
The budget request included no funds for the M1A2 SEP
retrofit program. The M1A2 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.
In the past years, the committee has raised explicit
concerns regarding the Army's tank modernization program and
associated funding. Operation Iraqi Freedom has demonstrated
that there are few conflicts where main battle tanks 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 its
active component heavy forces and selected Army National Guard
brigades with the M1A2 SEP tank.
The conversion to 35 heavy armor modular brigade combat
teams (BCTs) underscores the need for Abrams tank
modernization. The committee understands the Army's modularity
initiative puts a premium on not just quantity of equipment
such as tanks but also quality of equipment. The committee
understands the Army is pursuing a strategy that purports
several pure fleet options for these heavy BCTs and notes the
most optimal option has 18 heavy BCTs outfitted with the M1A2
SEP tank. The committee notes the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13) funds modernization of
one 3rd Infantry Division BCT. The committee commends the Army
for recognizing the need to equip one of the Army's premier
armor units with M1A2 SEP tanks. But there remains a
requirement for 180 additional M1A2 SEP tanks just to complete
pure fleeting of the 3rd Infantry Division.
The committee is concerned about the Army's plans to
resource Abrams tank modernization. Therefore, the committee
strongly encourages the Army to procure at least one heavy
armor modular brigade combat team of M1A2 SEP tanks annually,
beginning in the fiscal year 2007 budget request until a
minimum of 18 BCTs are equipped with the M1A2 SEP tank.
Stryker tire second source qualification
The budget request included $878.4 million for the
procurement of the Stryker Family of Vehicles and associated
costs, but included no funds to qualify a second source for the
production of the existing Stryker tire.
The committee recognizes that tires are currently the
highest demand item in sustainment and deployment for the
Stryker. The majority of tire failures are being caused by
wear-out from high operational tempo, from increased pressure
due to the weight associated with the addition of Slat add-on
armor for protection against rocket propelled grenades (RPGs),
and damage from RPG and improvised explosive devices attacks.
The committee suggests qualifying a second source for tire
production in order to maintain timely military supply needs
and domestic industrial base capabilities. The committee
assumes that tires would be purchased from both sources only as
needed to supply increased requirements in production,
sustainment, and deployment. The committee understands cost
savings could be realized due to competition and that
historically second source situations can produce cost savings
in unit price up to 25 percent.
The committee recommends $893.4 million, an increase of
$15.0 million to qualify a second source supplier for the
existing Stryker tires.
Ammunition Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.7
billion for Ammunition Procurement, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $1.8 billion, an increase of $29.9
million, for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Kansas army ammunition plant modern munitions enterprise
The budget request contained $33.5 million for provision of
industrial facilities, but included no funds for the flexible
load, assemble and pack (LAP) modern munitions enterprise at
the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant. In fiscal years 2004 and 2005
Congress appropriated $3.5 million and $6.5 million,
respectively, for the flexible LAP modern munitions enterprise.
The committee recognizes there are significant critical
challenges making modern munitions during the LAP phase.
Transforming an existing, high volume production facility to a
flexible LAP installation can support both the latest explosive
formulations and smart component assembly needed to meet these
critical challenges. The flex-line concept would provide
upgrade and modernization of obsolete plant infrastructure and
production equipment by taking the manufacturing technologies
at the Armament Research Development and Engineering Center and
applying them to the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant for
implementation. In doing so, the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant
would be better able to meet the future needs of smart
munitions programs for the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million for continuation of the flexible LAP modern munitions
enterprise at the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant.
Lake City army ammunition plant
The budget request contained $144.6 million for ammunition
production base support, of which $33.5 million is for the
provision of industrial facilities. However, no funds were
requested to continue the modernization and transformation
program at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.
The committee is aware that a significant investment in new
equipment and facilities at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is
required to provide the quantities of small caliber ammunition
necessary to support ongoing operations in the global war on
terror.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
continue the modernization and transformation of the Lake City
Army Ammunition Plant during fiscal year 2006.
M19 modern demolition initiators
The budget request contained $29.7 million for demolition
munitions (all types), but contained no funds for M19 modern
demolition initiators (MDI).
The committee understands the M19 MDI is currently in use
by combat engineers for ongoing operations in Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The M19 MDI is smaller
and lighter than previous designs and is easier for the soldier
to employ. Consequently, it substantially reduces the soldier's
time on target, thereby reducing the risk of potential
casualties resulting from enemy attack. The committee notes
that the budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of M19 modern demolition initiators to replace initiators
already utilized, thereby reducing the war time reserve
available.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.9
million for procurement of M19 modern demolition initiators.
Missile propellant/warhead chemical oxidizer recycling
The budget request contained $102.9 million for all
conventional munitions demilitarization, but contained no funds
for missile recycling capability (MRC) energetics processing
module (EPM) commissioning.
The committee notes the MRC EPM project supports Department
of Defense sustainability objectives through demilitarization
of ammonium perchlorate (AP), cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine
(HMX) and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX) based rocket
motor propellants/warhead chemical oxidizers. Due to the
expensive nature of these oxidizers, this is a critical
technology to the overall success of the resource, recovery and
recycling. The EPM liquefied anhydrous ammonia based
demilitarization approach is a key component requirement for
the recycling of AP and HMX/RDX materials for reuse in new
solid propellants and warheads.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million to fund commissioning of the EPM capability at the
Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering
Center.
Rapid wall breaching kit
The budget request contained $29.7 million for demolition
munitions (all types), but contained no funds for the rapid
wall breaching kit (RWBK).
The committee notes that military operations urban terrain
(MOUT) missions are extremely dangerous due to field
construction of expedient explosive charges and unreliable
methods of attachment which expose the assault team to direct
enemy fire for unnecessary extended periods of time. The RWBK
is a one-man portable, fully integrated and engineered kit
containing all the necessary items to complete the breaching
mission. The RWBK system is employable within three minutes of
target acquisition and does not require extensive training or
special skills to operate. The RWBK can reduce the factors of
time on target, blast overpressure, and excess collateral
damage, resulting in improved safety for the warfighter.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million for procurement of the rapid wall breaching kit.
Small caliber ammunition manufacturer qualification
The committee notes that Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
(LCAAP) is and should remain the primary Department of the Army
qualified manufacturer of small caliber ammunition for
Department of Defense use. LCAAP is currently operating at 100
percent capacity for small caliber ammunition production and
the current Department of the Army small caliber ammunition
requirement is exceeding the domestic-based production rate.
The committee believes that in order to alleviate any potential
procurement shortfalls of small caliber ammunition due to
wartime surge requirements and increased small caliber
ammunition qualification training requirements above the
maximum rate capability of LCAAP, a second-source, domestic-
based manufacturer of small caliber ammunition is needed.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to qualify and secure a second-source, domestic-based
manufacturer of small caliber ammunition, exclusively for surge
production requirements above the LCAAP capacity.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $4.3
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $4.0 billion, a decrease of $259.3 million,
for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
AN/ARS-6A technology upgrade
The budget request contained $15.7 million to procure
combat survivor evader locator (CSEL) radios, but contained no
funds for the technology upgrade and modification for the AN/
ARS-6 V3 personnel locator system for Army special operations
forces (SOF) MH-60 and MH-47 helicopters.
The committee notes that Congress appropriated $2.2 million
for procurement of the AN/ARS-6A system for the Army in fiscal
year 2005. The committee is aware of the need to modify the
Army's AN/ARS-6 V3 system to the updated AN/ARS-6A. Army SOF
helicopters routinely perform search and rescue operations with
all components of the U.S. armed forces, as well as with the
disparate elements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
member militaries. Many of these organizations are migrating to
modern survival radios and beacons such as the CSEL radio, the
PRC-112 B/G radio and the 406 emergency locator transmitter
(ELT) which are incompatible with current combat search and
rescue communications equipment installed on Army SOF aircraft.
The AN/ARS-6A upgrade will have the ability to interface and
communicate with CSEL, PRC-112B, 406 ELT, and potentially the
PRC-112G.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.2
million for procurement of the AN/ARS-6A.
Best value procurement practices for tactical wheeled vehicles
The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense
to apply best value procurement practices to the acquisition of
critical components installed on tactical wheeled vehicles
(TWV). As noted elsewhere in this report, the Army and Marine
Corps TWV fleets compose the critical logistical and
maneuverable backbone of military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Current operations demand that these vehicles
serve as combat systems not just logistical vehicles. The
committee is concerned that certain TWV components are procured
based on the lowest price rather than more important features
such as performance, quality and durability. Given the role of
TWVs, the rule of best value should be applied to procurement
of select TWV critical components.
Cartledge infuser
The budget request contained $10.7 million for procurement
of combat support medical equipment, but included no funds for
the Cartledge Infuser.
In battle, trauma causes the majority of casualties to our
servicemen and women and death often results from uncontrolled
bleeding and reduced oxygen delivery to vital organs. In
treating a casualty, medical personnel infuse blood or volume-
expanding fluids to rapidly replace lost blood. In cases of
severe shock and severe bleeding, however, current devices and
infusion techniques are often insufficient. The committee notes
the demonstrated effectiveness of the Cartledge Infuser, which
is capable of infusing fluids at rates ranging from 20 ml/hour
to 1200 mil/minute, giving a surgeon the time necessary to
treat the patient.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
procurement of the Cartledge Infuser.
Deployable power generation distribution system
The budget request contained $43.1 million for generators
and associated equipment, but contained no funds for the 920kW
Deployable Power Generation Distribution System (DPGDS), a
joint program to replace older generators for Air Force
expeditionary airfields and Army engineer battalions. The
budget request would terminate production of DPGDS without
filling the Army's requirement.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million to
continue production of the 920kW DPGDS in order to address the
Army's requirements.
Heavy expanded mobility tactical truck light equipment transporter
The budget request included $207.1 million for the family
of heavy tactical vehicles, but included no funds for the heavy
expanded mobility tactical truck (HEMTT) light equipment
transporter (LET), the M893 A2 LET.
The M893 A2 LET will be the primary vehicle for the
engineer battalions of the Army National Guard, who support the
Army's modular units of action and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams
(SBCTs). Although the Army has begun to deploy Guard engineer
battalions to support units of action and SBCTs, the M893 A2
LET is not yet fielded to many units.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to
procure the M893 A2 LET for the Army National Guard.
Nonsystem training devices
The budget request contained $184.5 million to procure
nonsystem training devices, but included no funds to procure
the Laser Marksmanship Training System (LMTS) for the Army
National Guard; Bullet Sensor Livefire Trainer for the active
force and Army National Guard; Virtual Training Demonstration
Project; or the America's Army Future Soldier Trainer (AA-FST)
for the active force and Army National Guard. The committee
notes that each of these systems provides needed training for
military personnel.
The committee recognizes the Army National Guard has
immediate, urgent requirements for LMTS to maintain highly
effective marksmanship training skills for recent deployments
to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Bullet Sensor Livefire Trainer
is a wireless, battery operated, automated, lightweight,
portable training tool that provides soldiers with instant,
precise and computerized feedback of bullet strikes on paper
targets and can maximize training proficiency of the active,
guard and reserve components. The Virtual Training
Demonstration project initiates an immersive group simulation
training demonstration project to provide additional training
opportunities for active, reserve, and guard components; and to
effectively assess and identify potential resource savings
associated with the conduct of virtual training as a supplement
to live training. The AA-FST program has proven to be a
valuable tool to lower attrition among future soldiers prior to
their entry into initial training and the committee notes that
phase 2 of the AA-FST program will expand the program to 12
battalion sets for the active force.
The committee recommends $7.5 million for LMTS for the Army
National Guard, $5.6 million for the Bullet Sensor Livefire
Trainers, $3.0 million for the Virtual Training Demonstration
project, and $13.7 million for phase 2 of the AA-FST program;
an increase of $29.8 million for nonsystem training devices.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $10.5
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $10.0 billion, a decrease of $474.6
million, for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Crashworthy crew chief seats
The budget request contained $14.9 million for CH-53 Cargo
Helicopter Modifications, but no funds were requested for the
crashworthy crew chief seats.
The crashes of CH-53s due to hostile fire and non-hostile
fire incidents in Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrate the need
for crashworthy crew chief seats. The installation of
crashworthy seats would increase crewmember mission efficiency
and effectiveness while significantly reducing the risk of
death or injury during a hard landing or controlled crash.
Survivability equipment is an essential part of force
protection, which is the committee's highest priority.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million for
the procurement of crashworthy crew chief seats for the CH-53
aircraft.
EA-6B modifications
The budget request contained $120.6 million for EA-6B
modifications, of which $52.2 million was included for improved
capabilities (ICAP) III modification kits and associated
equipment, and $9.6 million was included for one low-band
transmitter pod. The Department of the Navy's fleet of EA-6B
aircraft is currently the Department of Defense's only aircraft
configured to provide the electronic-jamming capability to deny
and degrade the detection of friendly forces by enemy air
defense systems.
The ICAP III modification significantly improves the EA-
6B's ability to suppress and destroy modern enemy air defenses
by accurately identifying the specific emitter type, and by
providing the enemy emitter's range and bearing, thereby
allowing timely employment of suppression or destruction
weapons. The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
(CNO) has included additional ICAP III modification kits among
his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2006, and therefore
recommends an increase of $73.0 million for seven additional
ICAP III modification kits and associated equipment.
The low-band transmitter pod replaces the current ALQ-99
tactical jamming system (TJS) and provides the EA-6B with an
expanded jamming capability against the early warning and
acquisition radars of modern integrated air defense systems.
The low-band transmitter pod also provides significantly
improved reliability and maintainability compared to the ALQ-99
TJS. The committee notes that the CNO included the procurement
of 11 additional low-band transmitter pods among his highest
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2006, and therefore
recommends an increase of $16.4 million for this purpose.
In total, the committee recommends $210.0 million for EA-6B
modifications, an increase of $89.4 million.
Joint primary air training system
The budget request contained $2.4 million for Joint Primary
Air Training System (JPATS) program support, but included no
funds to procure T-6A aircraft or associated ground- based
training systems.
The JPATS, consisting of both the T-6A aircraft and a
ground-based training system, will be used by the Navy and Air
Force for primary pilot training. The T-6A will replace both
the Navy's T-34 and Air Force's T-37B fleets, providing safer,
more economical and more effective training for student pilots.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy does
not plan to continue JPATS procurement until fiscal year 2007,
and, continues to believe that JPATS procurement for the Navy
would not only reduce procurement costs for both the Navy and
the Air Force, but would also reduce operations and maintenance
costs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $37.4 million for
JPATS, an increase of $35.0 million for six T-6A aircraft and
associated ground-based training systems.
P-3 modifications
The budget request contained $163.3 million for P-3 series
modifications, but included no funds for procurement of high
resolution digital recorders for P-3C aircraft equipped with
the anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) upgrade, or
for a communications for real-time intelligence surveillance
and reconnaissance support (CURTIS) program for block
modification upgrade (BMUP) P-3C aircraft.
The AIP upgrade improves the P-3C's surveillance,
communications, survivability, and over-the-horizon targeting
capabilities through the installation of commercial-off-the-
shelf components. The committee understands that current
recorders used to record electro-optical, infra-red, and radar
on AIP-equipped P-3C aircraft have limited information storage
capability, and have high failure rates resulting in the loss
of mission-critical intelligence data. To address this
situation, the committee believes that AIP-equipped P-3C
aircraft should be upgraded with high resolution digital
recorders, therefore recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
this purpose.
The CURTIS program for BMUP P-3C aircraft would provide
improved satellite communication radios and a capability to
video-link imagery to ground forces. Additionally, the CURTIS
program would allow an operator to fuse intelligence data from
all existing systems to provide a more comprehensive picture to
operational commanders and ground personnel. Since the
committee believes that the CURTIS program would improve the
viability of the BMUP P-3C aircraft fleet, it recommends an
increase of $2.0 million to procure a CURTIS production
demonstration kit and to conduct CURTIS aircraft flight
certification.
In total, the committee recommends $170.3 million for P-3
series modifications, an increase of $7.0 million.
Shared reconnaissance pod logistics support
The budget request contained $2.7 billion for 38 F/A-18E
and F/A-18F aircraft, but included no funds for the shared
reconnaissance pod (SHARP) logistics support.
The SHARP is an electro-optical and infra-red podded
system, mounted on the F/A-18E and F/A-18F aircraft, which is
capable of collecting long- and medium-range imagery to provide
data-linked information to combatant commanders about potential
enemy targets. The committee understands that without an
increase for SHARP logistics support, full operational
capability of the Department of the Navy's 21 SHARPs will not
be achieved, and the committee notes that the Chief of Naval
Operations included SHARP logistics support among his unfunded
priorities for fiscal year 2006.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.2
million for SHARP logistics support, and understands that this
increase will complete development of maintenance manuals and
training products.
T-45 training system
The budget request contained $239.2 million for procurement
of six T-45C aircraft and associated training systems. The T-45
training system (TS) is an integrated training system that
combines the T-45 aircraft, simulators, and computer-based
training for the Navy's intermediate-level undergraduate pilot
training.
The committee understands that the quantity of six aircraft
budgeted for fiscal year 2006 is less than the most economical
minimum sustaining procurement rate, and notes that the Chief
of Naval Operations has included the procurement of three
additional T-45C aircraft among his unfunded priorities for
fiscal year 2006. The committee also understands that an
increase of three aircraft procured in fiscal year 2006 would
save approximately $4.0 million in reduced unit costs.
Consequently, the committee recommends $297.8 million for
the T-45TS, an increase of $58.6 million for three additional
T-45C aircraft.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $2.7
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $2.8 billion, an increase of $67.2 million,
for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Tomahawk missile
The budget request contained $353.4 million for 379
tactical tomahawk (TACTOM) missiles.
The TACTOM missile is a long-range, precision-strike cruise
missile launched from surface ships or submarines. Currently,
TACTOM maximum production capacity is 456 missiles per year.
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy's
programmed budget for TACTOM missiles would result in an
inventory that is significantly below the Navy's stated
Tomahawk requirement inventory level, and believes that an
increase to the maximum TACTOM production capacity in fiscal
year 2006 is warranted to help restore expenditures from the
recent Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $420.6 million for
the Tomahawk missile, an increase of $67.2 million for 77
additional TACTOM missiles. The committee believes that this
increase should be distributed to procure an additional 57
surface and 20 subsurface TACTOM variants, and understands that
this increase will result in a production net savings of at
least $10,000 per missile.
Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $872.8
million for Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps. The
committee recommends authorization of $869.8 million, a
decrease of $3.1 million, for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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.
Item of Special Interest
MN79 anti-personnel obstacle breaching system
The budget request contained $38.8 million for linear
charges (all types), including $32.0 million for procurement of
the MN79 Anti-Personnel Obstacle Breaching System (APOBS).
The APOBS is a two-man, portable, rocket propelled mine and
obstacle clearing line charge system designed to clear a
footpath through anti-personnel mines and wire obstacles during
assault-breaching operations. The APOBS system is one of the
first systems to fully comply with the insensitive munitions
requirements and is also being tested for use on unmanned
ground vehicles and robotic platforms to further enhance
assault-breaching capabilities and warfighter protection.
Lastly, the committee understands an APOBS shortage exists in
war and training reserve stockpiles.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million to sufficiently fund procurement requirements of the
APOBS.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $8.7
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $10.8 billion, an increase of $2.1
billion, for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the
table below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed
following the table.
Item of Special Interest
Navy shipbuilding programs
The committee is greatly concerned about the dramatic
increase in Navy shipbuilding costs, the viability of the
Navy's future force structure, and the ambiguity and volatility
in the Navy's shipbuilding plans.
The spiraling growth in the costs of modern military
systems has reached 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. Nowhere, is this risk more
apparent than in naval shipbuilding. Admiral Vern Clark, Chief
of Naval Operations, when testifying before the committee on
the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Department of the
Navy stated, ``As we seek greater combat capability and greater
operational efficiencies through upgraded power, propulsion,
and computing technologies, we find a ratio of cost growth
beyond our seeming control, which may not be fully explainable
solely by reduced economies of scale.'' The committee agrees
that general inflation, raw material cost increases, and
reduced overhead absorption due to shipbuilding rate decreases
cannot fully explain the dramatic increase in shipbuilding
costs.
Admiral Clark, in his posture statement before the House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense stated,
``We need to partner with Congress and industry to regain our
buying power. Acquisition and budget reforms, such as multi-
year procurement, economic order quantity, and other approaches
help to stabilize the production path, and in our view, reduce
the per unit cost of ships and increase our shipbuilding
rate.'' The committee does not agree that creative financing
methodologies that delay recognizing the true cost of
shipbuilding or that provide ever-increasing amounts of funding
to cover the explosion in ship costs are responsible actions.
Incremental funding, advanced procurement, multi-year
procurement, and various creative shipyard work allocation
arrangements have failed to control the cost growth of vessel
classes such as the Virginia class submarine, the replacement
amphibious assault ship (LHA(R)), the future major surface
combatant ship (DD(X)), and the future aircraft carrier CVN-21.
The committee believes the lack of discipline in both the
requirements development process and the systems design and
demonstration phase process are the largest contributors to the
spiraling cost growth in naval vessels. The capabilities
defined in the requirements development process must be
constrained by an appropriate amount of overmatch capability,
acknowledgement that some missions may be better served by
other platforms in the joint battle space and by costs that
permit the continued deployment of sufficient naval force
structure. With the cost of a destroyer having potentially
grown to be greater than 50 percent of the cost of the Nimitz
class aircraft carrier, this class of new ships is simply not
affordable. Further, the latest reports indicate that the CVN-
21 aircraft carrier may cost as much as $13.0 billion.
The committee supports increased funding for naval
shipbuilding. However, the committee recognizes that fiscal
constraints will not permit the continued funding of
dramatically more expensive vessels that will only further
reduce force structure of the fleet and expedite the atrophy of
our shipbuilding capability. Accordingly, the committee has
included in this Act provisions that constrain the unit cost of
the Virginia class submarine, the DD(X), the Littoral Combat
Ship (LCS), and the LHA(R). Further, these provisions are
intended to force the Navy to assess the trade-off between
military requirements and affordability and to stabilize ship
designs prior to construction. In the interim, the committee
recommends that the construction of two additional Arleigh
Burke class (DDG-51) destroyers be authorized with funds, in
part, from the cost savings derived from the aforementioned
alterations to the DD(X) program.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $5.5
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $5.6 billion, an increase of $146.5 million,
for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Joint threat emitter
The budget request contained $46.6 million for weapons
range support equipment but included no funds to procure the
joint threat emitter (JTE).
The JTE is an advanced, mobile, rapidly reprogrammable
electronic warfare threat simulator that generates all known
ground-based electronic warfare threats. The committee notes
that the budget request includes JTE procurement by the
Department of the Air Force, understands that the Department of
the Navy's Fallon Training Range requires upgraded threat
simulations which can be met by the JTE, and believes that JTE
unit costs can be reduced for both Departments by providing an
increase for Department of the Navy JTE procurement.
Therefore, the committee recommends $56.6 million for
weapons range support equipment, an increase of $10.0 million
for procurement of the JTE.
Material handling equipment
The budget request contained $12.9 million for materials
handling equipment (MHE), of which $1.2 million was included to
procure seven C-130 transportable scoop loaders with six-ton
MHE capability for the Naval Construction Force (NCF) Seabees.
The scoop loader with six-ton MHE capability is versatile,
demonstrates commonality with Marine Corps MHE, and provides
NCF Seabees the capability to reliably, safely, and cost
effectively meet critical reconstruction mission requirements
in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
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 understands construction equipment and MHE constitute
the backbone of the NCF Seabees.
The committee recommends $23.9 million for materials
handling equipment, an increase of $11.0 million for 66
transportable scoop loaders with six-ton MHE capability in
order to accelerate the replacement of obsolete, worn out MHE.
Mine sweeper re-engining
The budget request contained no funding in ship propulsion
equipment to re-engine ships one and two of the mine sweeper
MCM-1 class.
The committee notes that except for ships one and two,
ships of the mine sweeper MCM-1 class have been base-lined with
upgraded diesel engines. The committee is aware that re-
engining has improved performance and simplified the logistics
tail and fleet maintenance by having common engines.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million to re-engine the first two ships of the class.
Naval tactical fiber switch system
The budget request contained $98.9 million for AEGIS
support equipment, but included no funds to replace the
existing high speed data switches at the AEGIS Computer Center
(ACC), AEGIS Training and Readiness Center (ATRC), and Surface
Combat Systems Center (SCSC).
The committee is aware that high speed switches at these
three centers are critical enablers which allow for rapidly
reconfigurable training, simulation, and testing on all 84
AEGIS combat system configurations. The existing switch systems
represent single point failure modes, which due their age and
limitations could substantially degrade readiness.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.9
million for the upgrade of switches at ACC, ATRC, and SCSC to
the Naval Tactical Fiber Switch System.
Special operations swimmer/diver training craft
The budget request contained $15.7 million for standard
boats, but included only $1.8 million to procure special
operations swimmer/diver training craft. The committee
understands that the Navy requires a total of 64 new craft to
replace today's aging training craft fleet and accommodate the
increased training requirements of the Naval Special Warfare
Command.
The committee recommends $21.7 million for standard boats,
an increase of $6.0 million for the procurement of an
additional 24 special operations swimmer/diver training craft.
Surveillance towed array sensor system twin-line towed arrays
The budget request contained $3.8 million for Surveillance
Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) procurement, but included
no funds for procurement of SURTASS twin-line towed arrays.
SURTASS is the mobile, tactical and strategic arm of the
Navy's undersea surveillance capability that provides deep
ocean and littoral acoustic detection and cueing for tactical
weapon platforms against diesel and nuclear submarines, as well
as surface vessels in any given area of operations worldwide.
The committee notes that the limited number of thin-line towed
array operational spares affects the preventive maintenance
capability of the Navy's towed array maintenance and support
infrastructure and the operational capability of the anti-
submarine warfare tactical-auxiliary general ocean surveillance
ships for collection of undersea acoustic data. The committee
also notes that the Chief of Naval Operations identified the
procurement of additional TB-29A twin-line array ship sets as a
priority unfunded requirement.
The committee recommends $18.7 million for SURTASS
procurement, including $14.9 million for the procurement of two
TB-29A twin-line towed array ship sets.
Transportable anti-intrusion pontoon barrier system
The budget request contained $238.3 million for procurement
of physical security equipment for the Navy.
The committee notes that the need exists for a
transportable barrier system that can be used to protect U.S.
Navy ships and other government assets while in port at home
and abroad, and the absence of such systems in general use
throughout the fleet. The committee is aware of the development
by a Navy-industry team of a concept for such a transportable
barrier system, and plans for development and evaluation of the
system. The committee believes that such a system could
significantly improve the safety and security of our ships and
port facilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for
development and evaluation of the transportable anti-intrusion
pontoon barrier system.
Ultrasonic maintenance tools
The budget request contained no funds for ultrasonic
maintenance tools.
The committee is aware that the introduction of ultrasonic
maintenance tools throughout the Navy has the potential to
reduce maintenance man-hours by eliminating several time
consuming maintenance procedures that are used to locate leaks,
find bearing anomalies, and identify clogged fuel injectors.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for
ultrasonic maintenance tools.
National Defense Sealift Fund
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.6
billion for National Defense Sealift Fund. The committee
recommends authorization of $1.7 billion, an increase of $48.5
million, for fiscal year 2006.
Item of Special Interest
Maritime prepositioning ship lease buyout
The budget request, within the National Defense Sealift
Fund, contained $749.8 million to exercise purchase options on
13 Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS). Because of the
continuing need for these ships beyond the original 25-year
lease term, the committee recommends the purchase of six ships
in this fiscal year, at a total cost of $414.0 million. The
committee also recommends a $103.0 million increase to the
Navy's operation and maintenance account for the purpose of
continuing the ``capital hire payments'' on the seven ships
that are not being purchased. The committee expects that the
Navy will exercise these options to purchase the following
ships: MV SGT William R. Button, MV 1st LT Jack Lummus, MV 1st
LT Baldomero Lopez, MV PFC Dewayne T. Williams, SS Maj Stephen
W. Pless, and MV 2nd Lt John P. Bobo. The committee also
expects that the funds provided in this Act will not be used to
purchase fewer than the six ships enumerated above. The
purchase of these ships will provide the Navy with the newest
vessels within the total complement of Maritime Prepositioning
ships, and ultimately provide the Navy with the greatest
capability until the new Marine Prepositioning Force (Future)
ships come on line.
While the Navy negotiated for purchase options on all 13 of
the MPS, the exact option price is the greater of the
termination value, which is set forth in the lease, and the
current fair market value. The contract language provides that
the ``fair market value shall mean the price that a willing
purchaser, that is not the charterer (Navy) or an affiliate of
the charterer would pay to purchase the vessel in an arm's-
length transaction.'' If negotiations do not result in an
agreement on the buy-out value, the market value is determined
by an arbitration panel made up of three appraisers. The
committee understands, on the first ships in the purchase
process, that the appraised market value will be determined
before the end of September 2005.
The committee expects, in the event that these appraised
market values exceed in any significant way the termination
values in the leases, that the Navy will withdraw its purchase
notifications to the owners, and the congressional defense
committees will be notified immediately of the Navy's future
plans with respect to the MPS.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.4
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.4 billion, an increase of $29.9 million,
for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Combat casualty care equipment upgrade
The budget request contained $2.5 million for procurement
of field medical equipment, but included no funds for the
upgrade of combat casualty care equipment.
The committee notes that the U.S. Marine Corps combat
casualty care equipment upgrade program provides improved field
medical equipment to meet requirements highlighted by today's
combat operations and littoral warfare. It permits Navy Medical
Department corpsmen supporting Fleet Marine Force battalions to
move quickly to stabilize and evacuate casualties during the
critical ``golden hour'' after initial traumas, thereby vastly
improving survival rates and recovery times. The program
procures state-of-the-art, lightweight, standard litters and
litter load carriage tools, pelvic stabilization devices,
tactical airway tools, trauma gloves, and other kits, and on-
board, life-saving medical kits for tactical vehicles.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million for
the combat casualty care equipment upgrade program.
Family of construction equipment
The budget request contained $19.7 million for family of
construction equipment, but contained no funds for procurement
of the Mobi-Mat Helipad System.
The Mobi-Mat Helipad System is a commercial-off-the-shelf
55, x 100, helicopter landing pad made out of 12 rolls/panels
of a lightweight, patented, polyester mesh that is anchored to
the ground and is designed to reduce sand clouds and foreign
object damage by creating a safe landing platform for all types
of aircrafts, including rotorcraft. The committee recognizes
this system decreases maintenance costs of rotorcraft engines
and rotor blades while also enhancing the safety, reliability,
and performance of rotorcraft operating in harsh, desert
environments. The committee notes this system is being used
extensively and successfully in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Therefore, the committee recommends $23.7 million, an
increase of $4.0 million to replace worn out Mobi-Mat Helipad
Systems.
Marines tactical remote sensor system
The budget request contained $18.4 million for the Tactical
Remote Sensor System (TRSS).
The committee recognizes the importance of TRSS to provide
state-of-the-art ground surveillance for continuous,
unattended, all-weather detection, location and monitoring of
enemy activity. The committee notes the product improvement
plan for TRSS to replace inventories of obsolete sensors with
those that autonomously provide better classification of
targets and enemy activity. The committee also notes TRSS is an
unfunded Marine Corps requirement.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.9 million for
TRSS product improvement.
Marines topographic equipment
The budget request contained no funding for the Topographic
Production Capability Components (TPCC), an unfunded Marine
Corps requirement.
The committee recognizes the importance of TPCC to provide
geographic and geospatial analysis and production to marines on
the move, and to the Joint Task Force Commander and the Marine
Component Commander through a system of highly transportable
modular systems. The committee notes that the continuous
deployment of intelligence battalions in support of the global
war on terrorism has reduced the equipment life of the
topographic gear. Additionally, the committee notes that
marines rely on TPCC products more and more, and this has lead
to an increasing requirement for TPCC systems in the field.
Therefore, the committee recommends $1.8 million for the
Marine Corps TPCC program.
Night vision equipment
The budget request contained $20.8 million for night vision
equipment, but included no funds to procure the Close Quarters
Battle Sight (CQBS) system.
The Marine Corps mission needs statement states the M4
Close Quarter Battle (CQB) Weapon must be capable of effective
employment in all environments. The CQBS system is a day/night
weapon sight that can be outfitted on the M4 CQB. The CQBS
employs thermal technology which increases the effectiveness of
the M4 CQB in all weather conditions, to include the
penetration of light foliage, smoke, dust, and camouflage. The
committee understands that the CQBS augments M4 CQB capability
and acts as a critical combat enabler for marines participating
in the global war on terrorism.
The committee notes 54 CQBS systems were procured by the
Marine Corps in fiscal year 2005 for use in an initial
operational assessment. The committee recognizes the initial
findings of this operational assessment have exceeded the
Marine Corps expectations and the Marine Corps now requires
additional funds to expand this initial operational assessment
to a more realistic test-bed, to include further testing of the
CQBS thermal capability.
The committee supports this expansion and therefore, the
committee recommends $30.8 million for night vision equipment,
an increase of $10.0 million to procure an additional 715 CQBS
systems to expand the ongoing operational assessment.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $12.0
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $12.8 billion, an increase of
$819.8 million, for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
A-10 litening advanced targeting pod
The budget request included $644.2 million for other
production charges, but contained no funds for the Litening
advanced targeting pod. The committee is aware that the
Litening advanced targeting pod has been used extensively in
the global war on terrorism for precision targeting, and that
the Air Force is seeking to maximize the procurement of
advanced targeting pods and accelerate pod delivery to meet
urgent requirements. The A-10 has been one of the weapon
systems most heavily called upon for close air support during
recent combat operations, yet many of the Air Force Reserve A-
10s do not have advanced targeting pods. The Litening advanced
targeting pod is the Air Force's preferred solution for
upgrading the precision targeting capabilities of the A-10.
The committee recommends $35.4 million for 24 pods for Air
Force Reserve A-10s.
AN/ARS-6 V12 personnel locator system
The budget request contained $50.5 million for
modifications of the HH-60 helicopter, but included no funds
for the AN/ARS-6 version 12 (V12) personnel locator system
(PLS) modification for MH-60 combat search and rescue
helicopters of the Air National Guard (ANG).
The committee notes that Congress appropriated $2.8 million
in fiscal year 2004 for the AN/ARS-6 V12 PLS modification for
the ANG MH-60 rotorcraft as part of a two phased approach. The
$2.8 million in the first phase provided the necessary
resources to integrate, test, evaluate and certify the new AN/
ARS-6 V12 PLS aboard the MH-60 helicopter, as well as modify
six Air National Guard MH-60 helicopters. The second phase
would leverage $3.0 million to complete integration and procure
the necessary AN/ARS-6 V12 PLS units to outfit the remaining 12
ANG MH-60 helicopters. The current version, the AN/ARS-6 V3, is
unable to communicate with newer combat survival radios/beacons
such as the combat survivor evader locator radio, the PRC-112
family of radios, and the 406 emergency locator transmitter.
Therefore, the committee recommends $53.5 million for HH-60
modifications, an increase of $3.0 million to meet an unfunded
requirement of the Air National Guard for MH-60 AN/ARS-6 V12
PLS upgrades.
C-17
The C-17 is a strategic cargo aircraft, capable of rapid
delivery to main operating bases, or directly to forward bases
in the deployment area. The aircraft is also capable of
performing tactical airlift and airdrop missions when required.
The C-17 is currently procured under a multiyear procurement
contract, in which the funding for the last aircraft is planned
to be appropriated in fiscal year 2007 with the last deliveries
under the existing contract scheduled for fiscal year 2008. The
budget request includes $2,709.9 billion for 15 C-17 aircraft
and $445.4 million for advance procurement of the final 12, of
the current 60-aircraft multiyear procurement contract. The
Department of the Air Force currently plans for an inventory of
180 C-17 aircraft.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 108-491) accompanying the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), the committee strongly urged
the Department of the Air Force to budget for continued C-17
procurementthrough a multiyear procurement program to procure
at least 42 additional C-17 aircraft. The Commander of the U.S.
Transportation Command testified to the Projection Forces Subcommittee
on March 17, 2004, that at least 42 additional C-17 aircraft will be
required to meet future airlift needs. To maintain the current 15-per
year production rate beyond fiscal year 2007 for additional C-17
aircraft, the Department of the Air Force requires authorization for a
follow-on multiyear contract beginning in fiscal year 2006.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (Section
131) that authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to enter
into a multiyear contract beginning in fiscal year 2006 for 42
additional C-17 aircraft in accordance with section 2306b of
title 10, United States Code.
C-130 modifications
The budget request contained $185.7 million for C-130
modifications, of which $7.2 million was for the procurement
and installation of the large aircraft infra-red counter-
measures (LAIRCM) system on active duty C-130 aircraft, but
included no funds to procure or install the LAIRCM system on
the Air Force Reserve Command's (AFRC) HC-130 and C-130 fleets.
Additionally, $4.3 million of the C-130 modifications budget
request was for procurement and installation of the APN-241
radar on Air Force Special Operations Command C-130s, but the
budget request included no funds to procure or install the APN-
241 on the AFRC's C-130 aircraft fleet.
The LAIRCM system consists of ultra-violet missile warning
sensors, a missile tracking system, small laser turret
assemblies, and processors to detect, track and counter
incoming infra- red (IR)-guided missiles. The committee notes
that the LAIRCM system provides a significantly improved
defensive capability for large aircraft to counter the IR man-
portable air defense system threats, and believes that this
capability should be installed on the AFRC's HC-130 and C-130
fleets as soon as possible. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $32.0 million for procurement and
installation of the LAIRCM system on the AFRC's HC-130 and C-
130 fleets.
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-59, in addition to being obsolete, has a mean-time-
between-failure (MTBF) rate of 50 hours and is very costly to
maintain, while the AN/APN-241 radar has significantly improved
performance capabilities, and has a MTBF rate of 1000 hours.
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 $19.7 million for this purpose.
In total, the committee recommends an increase of $51.7
million for C-130 modifications.
F-15E
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of F-15E aircraft.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287) appropriated
$110.0 million for the procurement of two additional F-15E
aircraft, but understands that the Department of the Air Force
requires additional funds for this purpose.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $65.0
million for F-15E procurement, understands that an additional
$65.0 million will be required to complete the procurement of
two F-15Es, and encourages the Department of the Air Force to
budget for this amount in future budget requests.
F-16 bomb rack unit-57
The budget request contained $24.1 million for war
consumables, but included no funds to procure the F-16 bomb
rack unit (BRU)-57 for the Air National Guard (ANG).
The BRU-57 allows the F-16 aircraft to carry and employ
four one thousand pound precision guided munitions (PGMs),
twice as many as its current capabilities. The committee
understands that the ANG has identified a requirement to equip
its F-16 fleet with the BRU-57, and believes that this action
will enhance the value of the F-16 ANG units that are deployed
as part of the Air Force's Air Expeditionary Forces.
The committee recommends $29.4 million for war consumables,
an increase of $5.3 million for procurement of the F-16 BRU-57
for the ANG.
Global hawk
The budget request contained $398.4 million in Air Force
aircraft procurement for the Global Hawk unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) program.
The committee is extremely concerned with the elevated
costs of the Global Hawk UAV program, which has resulted in a
recent congressional notification of an overall cost overrun of
18 percent. Since 2001, the Air Force has restructured the
Global Hawk program twice and these poorly designed
restructurings have resulted in significant cost growth, which
is three times higher now than before the program restructure.
The committee strongly supports the Global Hawk program and
believes that it is an essential element of our national
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability.
However, this program must be finally brought under proper
management control.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
implement program management controls that: limit program
execution to the approved requirements and contains further
unapproved requirements growth, stabilizes the vehicle and
sensor design such that significant changes are not required,
executes the program within the approved baseline budget and
schedule, and focuses the government and industry management's
attention on production efficiency of air frames and sensors.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the Secretary's implementation of program management controls
by October 1, 2005. Additionally, the committee directs the
Secretary to submit to the congressional defense committees a
quarterly earned value management report.
The committee recommends $368.5 million for the procurement
of four Global Hawk air vehicles and one ground station, a
decrease of one vehicle and $29.9 million.
Joint strike fighter
The budget request contained $152.4 million for Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) advance low-rate initial production
procurement. This amount would fund the long-lead procurement
items necessary to build five conventional take-off and landing
(CTOL) Air Force variants, which would be fully funded in
fiscal year 2007 and planned for use in tactics and training
development.
The JSF program is an aircraft system development and
demonstration program which 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.
During the past year, the JSF program has addressed a
projected weight growth problem in all three JSF variants by
making design changes. The extra weight in the March 2004 JSF
designs would have significant performance implications because
the JSF in that weight configuration would not meet many key
performance parameters identified as necessary for JSF variants
to accomplish their planned missions. While the committee is
encouraged that the Department of Defense has identified those
weight problems and has aggressively addressed those issues
during the past year, it notes that the first JSF flight, now
scheduled for late August 2006, will not be constructed with
the redesigned, lower-weight JSF production configuration which
has been developed during the past year. Instead, the committee
understands that the first STOVL variant will be the first JSF
to fly with reduced-weight configuration in early fiscal year
2008 and the first reduced-weight CTOL variant is scheduled to
fly by mid-year in fiscal year 2008. Since the Department will
not know until early fiscal year 2008 whether its efforts to
reduce weight will actually result in the JSF meeting required
performance parameters, the committee believes that the
obligation of funds to begin low-rate initial production in
fiscal year 2007 is premature and, accordingly, the
authorization of advance procurement funds for this effort in
fiscal year 2006 is also premature.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for JSF
advance procurement, a decrease of $152.4 million.
Additionally, the committee understands that during the
preparation of the fiscal year 2006 budget request that there
were efforts by some within the military services to eliminate
planned budgets for the JSF competitive engine development
program. Despite those views, the committee also understands
that the Secretary of Defense ensured that the engine program
was nominally funded. The committee believes 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 therefore expects that the
Secretary, along with Department of the Navy and the Department
of the Air Force, will remain committed to the development of
competitive engines for the JSF.
KC-130J and C-130J
In the appropriation Aircraft Procurement, Navy, the budget
request contained $1,092.7 million for 12 KC-130J aircraft for
the Marine Corps, but included no funds for advance procurement
of KC-130J aircraft in fiscal year 2007. In the appropriation
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, the budget request contained
$99.0 million for logistics support of the Air Force's C-130J
fleet, but included no funds for either procurement of C-130J
aircraft or for advance procurement of C-130Js in fiscal year
2007.
Through fiscal year 2005, both the C-130J and KC-130J
aircraft were procured through a 62-aircraft, six-year
multiyear procurement contract authorized by section 131 of the
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 (Public Law 107-314), beginning in fiscal year 2003.
Because the multiyear contract requires the procurement of four
KC-130Js and nine C-130Js in fiscal year 2006 and a fiscal year
2006 payment for advance procurement of four KC-130Js and nine
C-130Js in fiscal year 2007, the KC-130J and C-130J budget
request would break an existing multiyear contract after the
third year, of the planned six-year contract, and terminate
production of all C-130J and KC-130J aircraft variants after
fiscal year 2006. While the committee notes that both multiyear
cancellation costs and C-130J production termination costs are
unknown at this time, it understands that estimates for these
costs are not included in KC-130J and C-130J budgets beyond
fiscal year 2006.
The committee understands that the budget requests for both
the C-130J and KC-130J were finalized late in the Department of
Defense's (DOD) budget preparation process. However, the
committee notes that requirements for the number of C-130Js
have yet to be determined in the DOD's Mobility Capability
Study (MCS), planned for completion later in fiscal year 2005
and in DOD's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), scheduled for
release in early fiscal year 2006, and believes that a decision
on whether to cancel the KC-130J and C-130J multiyear contract,
or to terminate C-130J production, should be informed by the
results of both the MCS and QDR, and budgeted accordingly.
Consequently, the committee recommends that the KC-130J and
C-130J multiyear contract proceed as previously planned for
fiscal year 2006, and recommends the following budget request
adjustments: in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, an increase of
$645.0 million for nine C-130J aircraft, an increase of $90.0
million for advance procurement of nine C-130Js in fiscal year
2007; and, in Aircraft Procurement, Navy, a decrease of $800.9
million and eight KC-130J aircraft, and an increase of $46.0
million for advance procurement of four KC-130J aircraft in
fiscal year 2007.
Link 16 support and sustainment
The budget request included $157.6 million in PE 27434F for
Link 16 support and sustainment. In fiscal year 2005, Congress
appropriated $3.4 million for the Link 16 Pocket J program.
Pocket J provides a deployable Link 16 capability that fills
gaps in Link 16 air space command and control coverage within
the continental United States or in austere, remote locations.
The committee supports the Pocket J program and its
capability to provide ground-based Link 16 coverage in support
of North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) air operations
center command and control aircraft for homeland air defense.
The committee views the production and deployment of Pocket J
units to establish local Link 16 coverage over major U.S.
cities and other potential targets as an urgent need in
addressing the core homeland defense mission of airspace
command and control.
The committee is concerned with the Air Force's lack of
funding for this program, and believes that an efficient
production line for Pocket J equipment should match the
requirements set forth by both Air Force Air Combat Command and
Electronic Systems Command. Further, Pocket J is intended to be
interoperable with the joint tactical radio system (JTRS).
However, JTRS development and procurement should not constrain
the development and production of the Pocket J program.
Currently, NORAD has no other system to provide Link 16
situational awareness data link capability until the Federal
Aviation Administration radio sites are JTRS equipped in 2020
or later.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to
initiate Pocket J production at an efficient rate until the
required Link 16 coverage is established that will address
threats to both cities and high-valued targets across the
United States.
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request contained $125.6 million for the
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), including $31.6 million
for the MQ-1 Predator A UAV and $25.0 million for two fully-
equipped MQ-9 Predator B systems.
The committee recognizes the proven, leap-ahead
technological advantage provided by the Predator A and Predator
B UAVs. The committee notes the particular advantage provided
by Predator B in terms of greater payload, speed, and altitude.
The committee applauds the success achieved by recent
collaboration between the Air Force and the contractor to
improve system performance. The committee recognizes such
efforts as a necessary aspect of advanced acquisition system
development. The committee urges the Air Force to build upon
such recent success and rapidly take steps to improve, refine,
and streamline operational tactics, techniques, and procedures.
The committee urges greater usage and availability of Predator
A assets and recommends an acceleration of the more capable
Predator B system.
The committee recommends $210.6 million for Predator
unmanned aerial vehicles, an increase of $85.0 million for six
additional, fully-equipped, Predator B UAV aircraft and related
support.
Senior scout
The budget request contained $185.7 million for the C-130
aircraft, but contained no funding for Senior Scout's increased
response capabilities.
The Senior Scout system is an intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance suite of equipment configured in a shelter
capable of installation in non-dedicated C-130E/H aircraft. The
system provides capabilities to exploit, geo-locate and report
signals of interest to air and ground component commanders. The
program is funded through the tactical cryptologic unit program
through the Air Force. It supplies three, C-130 capable roll-
on-roll-off sheltered systems ground Distributed Common Ground
System (DCGS) components to the 169th intelligence squadron
(IS), Utah, Air National Guard (ANG). The squadron has been
deployed numerous times since September 11, 2001. The Senior
Scout is supported solely by the 169th IS, which is a
repository of uniquely skilled ANG linguists and a core
component of the Air Force's airborne linguist pool. The Senior
Scout system package can be deployed with these skilled
linguists and analysts with the system installed on any
premodified aircraft within 24 hours. The committee believes
that this type of SIGINT approach to tactical warfighting in
the global war on terrorism is the right method in the global
war on terrorism.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million for
the manufacturing of an additional Senior Scout sheltered
system for increased capability and enhanced response to the
global war on terrorism and the war on drugs.
The committee understands the value of ``Reach-Back''
ground facilities to the C-130 Senior Scout capability. This
capability provides a ground facility with the ability to
simultaneously handle multiple airborne missions and a variety
of ``Reach-Back'' applications, including remote operator
workstations, live audio, and digital mission data distribution
and storage. This real-time, beyond line-of-sight capability
for Senior Scout will help alleviate critical operational tempo
loads on the limited number of high-demand specialty operators.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million to
fund a new satellite antenna and associated software that would
enhance dissemination of wider bandwidth data streams for the
``Reach-Back'' capability for the Senior Scout system.
U-2 senior year electro-optical system focal planes
The budget request contained $68.4 million for the U-2
systems, but contained only $0.8 million for the senior year
electro-optical reconnaissance system-2 (SYERS-2) sustainment.
The committee notes that the global war on terrorism has
increasingly relied on the near real-time imagery capability of
the SYERS-2 system to provide multi-band spectral imaging for
targeting precision munitions. The unfunded request reflects
the notable deficiency in visible focal plane arrays (FPA)
acquisition for the SYERS-2 system, as well as the depot repair
needed for the equipment for continued persistent surveillance
to the warfighter.
The committee recommends $75.2 million, for the purchase
and sustainment of SYERS-2 FPAs, an increase of $6.8 million.
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $1.0
billion for Ammunition Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $1.0 billion, the budget request,
for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the
table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are
discussed following the table.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $5.5
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $5.5 billion, the budget request,
for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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 2006 contained $14.0
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $14.1 billion, an increase of $66.1
million, for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Combat survivor radios
The budget request contained a total of $55.3 million for
4,910 combat survivor evader locator (CSEL) radios for the
Department of Defense (DOD). Of this total, $15.7 million was
included in the appropriation Other Procurement, Army in a line
entitled ``Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL)'' for 1,349
CSEL radios; $2.0 million was in the appropriation Other
Procurement, Navy in a line entitled ``Communications Items
Under $5M'' for 202 CSEL radios; $12.9 million was also
included in the appropriation Other Procurement, Navy in a line
entitled ``Aviation Life Support'' for 1,313 CSEL radios; and
$24.7 million was included in the appropriation Other
Procurement, Air Force in a line entitled ``Combat Survivor
Evader Locator'' for 2,046 CSEL radios.
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. While the committee supports the
procurement of CSEL radios to meet current and future survivor
communications, it understands that there are requirements for
approximately 40,000 survivor radios, but only a third of these
have thus far been met since CSEL procurement began in fiscal
year 2001. Since CSEL radios may not be available to some units
scheduled for combat deployments, the committee understands
that alternate survival radios are being procured by obligating
funds appropriated for operations and maintenance, and the
committee believes that procurement funds should also be made
available for either the CSEL, or an alternate survival radio,
to meet immediate user requirements.
To reflect a more responsive survival radio procurement
program in the Department, the committee recommends that line
item titles in both the Department of the Army and the
Department of the Air Force be changed as follows: a decrease
of $15.7 million in the appropriation Other Procurement, Army
in the line entitled ``Combat Survivor Evader Locator (CSEL)''
and a corresponding $15.7 million increase in a new line
entitled ``Combat Survivor Radios;'' and a decrease of $24.7
million in the appropriation Other Procurement, Air Force in
the line entitled ``Combat Survivor Evader Locator'' and a
corresponding $24.7 million increase in a new line entitled
``Combat Survivor Radios.'' For the Department of the Navy, the
committee believes that funds budgeted in Other Procurement,
Navy for CSEL radios could be obligated for either the CSEL or
alternate survival radios.
Digital airport surveillance radar and Department of Defense advanced
automations system
The budget request included $51.9 million for the national
airspace system including $42.4 million for the Digital Airport
Surveillance Radar (DASR) and $7.4 million for the Department
of Defense Advanced Automation System (DAAS). These systems are
being procured to replace Vietnam era air traffic control and
air surveillance systems at defense locations in coordination
with the air traffic control modernization program of the
Federal Aviation Administration.
The committee is aware that accelerating the deployment of
DAAS and DASR will improve military operations and homeland
defense, increase interoperability between military and
civilian aviation systems, and reduce operations and
maintenance costs.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million for
DAAS and DASR deployment to one additional facility, and
directs that priority be given to facilities with aircraft
assigned to United States Strategic Command.
Force protection surveillance system
The budget request contained $35.9 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 2005,
and believes that additional FPSSs should be acquired.
Therefore, the committee recommends $38.9 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.
General information technology
The budget request contained $111.0 million for general
information technologies, but included no funds for the science
and engineering lab data integration (SELDI) program, the
automatic asset following system (AAFS), or for the cluster
computing initiative.
The Air Force Material Command's science and engineering
lab captures, analyzes and disseminates lab test data to the
Air Force's engineering and system overhaul operations. The
SELDI program facilitates this mission by providing a
maintenance and logistics information management tool that
allows more rapid lab data access affecting overhaul
operations, provides accident investigators with immediate
access to lab results of failed components, enables component
failure trend analysis, and implements a new acoustic signature
sensors to ensure the proper chemical composition of materials
and equipment. For fiscal year 2005, the committee recommended
an increase of $8.0 million for the SELDI program, notes that
$4.9 million was appropriated, and continues to believe its
implementation would improve operational aircraft readiness,
increase flight safety and reduce support costs. Accordingly,
the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this
purpose.
The AAFS has been developed as an effective tool for asset
following operations, providing real-time, long-range data
communication for the safety, security, management, and control
of aircraft and vehicle fleet operations. The AAFS consists of
a satellite transceiver, antennas, a control display unit, and
application software. The committee understands that AAFS is
already used throughout the United States, and believes that
this capability could be applied to military forces engaged in
homeland security operations, especially in the Air National
Guard or Army National Guard. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $3.2 million for the AAFS.
The cluster computing initiative would replace the Air
Force Flight Test Center's current personal computers (PCs) and
high performance computers (HPCs) with a more flexible computer
architecture that would reduce maintenance and support costs.
The committee understands that the cluster computer upgrade
would also increase safety through improved test results, and
that this upgrade is a priority for the Air Force Flight Test
Center to support upcoming tests programs on the F-35, F/A-22,
F-16 and B-52 mid-life extension. Consequently, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.3 million for the cluster
computing initiative. In total, the committee recommends $121.5
million for general information technologies, an increase of
$10.5 million.
Mobile approach control system
The budget request contained $16.8 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
traffic squadrons. The committee understands that during
Operation Enduring Freedom, the Air Force's Air Combat Command
(ACC) received 10 requests for the MACS, but only 6 could be
met; and that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, ACC received 12
requests for the MACS but could only provide for 7.
Additionally, the committee notes that the Air Force Chief of
Staff has included MACSs for the ANG among his top four
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommends $51.4 million for air traffic
control and landing systems, an increase of $34.6 million for
two MACSs for the ANG, and encourages the Department to assign
these MACSs to the 235th and 241st Air Traffic Control
Squadrons.
Point of maintenance and combat ammunition system initiative
The budget request contained $14.6 million for mechanized
material handling equipment, but included no funds for the
point of maintenance and combat ammunition system initiative
(OMX/CAS).
The POMX/CAS is an automatic data collection program
developed by the Air Force Materiel Command's Automatic
Identification Technology Program Office which streamlines
mission critical data collection to reduce the burden on flight
line personnel. The committee has supported POMX/CAS in prior
years, notes that Congress appropriated increases for fiscal
years 2004 and 2005, and believes that its implementation at
additional Department of the Air Force installations will
increase the timeliness and accuracy of maintenance date
collection.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $22.6 million for
mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $8.0
million for the POMX/CAS.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2006 contained $2.7
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends
authorization of $2.7 billion, an increase of $37.6 million,
for fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2006
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
Chemical and biological defense procurement
The budget request contained $650.7 million for chemical
and biological defense (CBD) procurement, including $198.0
million for procurement of installation force protection
equipment, $97.2 million for individual protection equipment,
$3.0 million for decontamination equipment, $62.3 million for
the joint biological defense program, $31.8 million for
collective protection equipment, and $258.3 million for
contamination avoidance equipment.
The committee notes that limited funding for fielding the
M22 automatic chemical agent detection alarm (ACADA) in the
active and reserve components, forces units to use the
obsolescent M8 chemical agent alarm, which is prone to false
alarms. Congress added funds in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to
accelerate the fielding of the M22 ACADA.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for
procurement of the M22 ACADA.
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
The budget request contained $1.4 billion for chemical
agents and munitions destruction, including $1.2 billion for
operation and maintenance, $47.8 million for research,
development, test and evaluation, and $116.5 million for
procurement. The budget request included no funds for
construction of chemical agent and munitions destruction
facilities.
The committee notes that to date more than 11,200 tons of
lethal chemical agents and munitions, almost 36 percent of the
total U.S. stockpile, have been safely destroyed in 4
operational chemical demilitarization facilities, and that 2
additional demilitarization facilities are scheduled to become
operational in fiscal year 2005. The committee notes, however,
that the budget request represents a decrease of $49.1 million
(3.6 percent) from the amount contained in the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law
108-287) appropriation, despite the increased level of activity
planned for the program in fiscal year 2006.
During the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee's hearing on April 6, 2005, the
Department of Defense witnesses testified that based on current
cost and schedule estimates the United States will not achieve
the schedule for destruction of the stockpile mandated by the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Treaty (S. Res. 75-105).
Worst-case cost estimates for destruction of the stockpile
range from $26.8 billion to $37.3 billion and estimates of the
time required to complete destruction of the stockpile range
from 2021 to 2030. The committee notes that the increased costs
result primarily from the increased time required to destroy
the stockpile at all of the stockpile sites, and that current
planning estimates for construction and operation of Assembled
Chemical Weapon Alternative (ACWA) demilitarization facilities
at Pueblo, Colorado and Blue Grass, Kentucky significantly
exceed the program baseline. The committee also notes that in
January 2005, following a Defense Acquisition Board review of
the program, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) directed assessment of
alternatives that, if adopted, might permit the programmed cost
and CWC schedule to be achieved. On March 23, 2005, the
USD(AT&L) directed actions to implement the program within
certified baseline estimates ($1.5 billion for Pueblo and $2.0
billion for Blue Grass) and on April 15, 2005, released the
remainder of the fiscal year 2005 funds for the ACWA program to
the project manager. The committee has been advised informally
of requirements for additional military construction funding
for Blue Grass Army Depot and recommends that the Department of
Defense initiate a formal reprogramming request for those
funds. The committee directs that the USD(AT&L) submit a report
to the congressional defense committees by June 30, 2005, on
the results of the assessment of alternatives and any
recommendations for adjustments in the budget request or other
actions required to reduce costs and increase the probability
of achieving the CWC-mandated destruction schedule.
The committee further notes the ongoing review of proposals
for disposal at a commercial hazardous waste water disposal
facility of the hydrolysate that will result from the
neutralization of the bulk VX agent at Newport, Indiana. The
committee believes that the United States must proceed as
rapidly as possible in destroying the stockpile to ensure the
overall maximum safety of our citizenry and meet our
international treaty commitments, but must also proceed
objectively and deliberately in ensuring that the disposal of
the hydrolysate in a commercial hazardous waste disposal
facility would not compromise the public health and safety of
the citizens or the environment near such a facility. The
committee directs that the Army, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proceed expeditiously in a follow-on review and
resolution of the remaining issues relating to the process for
disposing of the effluent from the treated hydrolysate.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army not to
proceed with any action to transport or relocate VX hydrolysate
(other than those small quantities necessary for laboratory
evaluation of the disposal process) from the Newport Chemical
Depot until:
(1) The health and environmental concerns raised by
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in their April 2005
report ``Review of the U.S. Army Proposal for Off-Site
Treatment and Disposal of Caustic VX Hydrolysate from
the Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility'' have
been addressed in a manner so that both the CDC and the
EPA conclude that the process would not result in
substantial ecological risk or risk to human health;
and
(2) The Secretary certifies to the congressional
defense committees that sending the VX hydrolysate off-
site for treatment would result in significant cost and
schedule savings compared to on-site disposal of the
hydrolysate.
In addressing the issue of cost and schedule savings, the
Secretary shall conduct and provide to the congressional
defense committees a detailed cost-benefit analysis of both
off-site treatment of the hydrolysate and on-site treatment
methods, including chemical oxidation, wet-air oxidation,
electrochemical oxidation, supercritical-water oxidation,
solvated-electron technology, gas-phase chemical reduction,
plasma arc technology, and biodegradation.
Elsewhere in this report the committee has recommended a
provision that would transfer management of the ACWA program
from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics to the Secretary of the Army.
The committee recommends $47.8 million for Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction research, development, test and
evaluation; $116.5 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction procurement; and $1.2 billion for Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction operations and maintenance.
Force protection
The committee is aware of the continued need to strengthen
force protection measures to better protect troops against
indirect fire attack. The committee expects the Department of
Defense (DOD) to focus its force protection efforts on
identified threats facing troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom, including but not limited to rocket
propelled grenades, mortars, and artillery. The committee notes
there are commercially available products designed for use as
security forces buildings, overhead cover systems, blast
resistant barriers, and mobile container housing units which
have been tested by U.S. military testing facilities. These
products have been proven to withstand .50 caliber armor-
piercing rounds, low-yield bomb blasts, and 120 millimeter
artillery rounds and should be considered for deployment as
force protection measures.
Similarly, the committee notes that in fiscal years 2004
and 2005, Congress appropriated $1.0 million for Rapid
Deployment Fortification Wall (RDFW) research and development
as part of the Marine Corps Improved Expedient Fortification
Construction program. The RDFW is an expandable, stackable,
modular wall made of resilient, lightweight, environmentally-
responsible plastic that can augment sandbags. Further, the
RDFW can enhance force protection while decreasing the manpower
hours needed to expedite construction of fortifications. The
committee encourages DOD's use of RDFW to complement
traditional sandbag fortifications and other technologies
currently in use. Combat forces should be supported with a
complete force protection strategy and the Department should
consider newly demonstrated capabilities in support of this
strategy.
Persistent unmanned air vehicle intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance below the brigade level
The committee is concerned about the lack of persistent
unmanned air vehicle (UAV) intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) capability below the brigade level and the
resulting negative impact on force protection.
The committee believes this ISR deficiency is the result of
several factors including inadequate bandwidth and spectrum
allocation, insufficient numbers of ground stations, and the
lack of trained personnel. Force protection would be greatly
enhanced by persistent aerial ISR. Therefore, until the UAV
technology and personnel gaps are filled, the Secretary of
Defense is encouraged to employ interim solutions for this
mission.
Before the advent of UAVs, manned slow-speed forward air
control (FAC) aircraft demonstrated the value of on-station
tactical observers, trained in fire support and air control. An
interim manned FAC would provide tactical commanders with
valuable intelligence information, persistent surveillance, and
on-scene coordination not fully available with the present ISR
capabilities.
The committee encourages the Secretary to consider options
to meet the urgent interim requirement needed for a day and
night capable platform that can perform the persistent ISR
function for units on the move and in forward areas.
Special Operations Forces intelligence systems
The budget request contained $27.6 million for Special
Operations Forces (SOF) intelligence systems, but included only
$4.5 million to initiate procurement of Joint Threat
Warning Systems-Air (JTWS-A) for Air Force Special
Operations Command (AFSOC) aircraft and contained only $2.2
million to procure the Special Operations Tactical Video
System/Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition
System (SOTVS/RSTA).
The committee understands that the JTWS-A provides AFSOC
aircrews operating over hostile territory with modern, direct
threat warning, replacing existing, unreliable threat warning
systems currently in use.
The committee recognizes that remote surveillance
capabilities and unattended ground sensors are increasingly
important to the conduct of special operations missions. Modern
equipment such as the SOTVS/RSTA is more capable, survivable,
and portable than earlier systems; and is an important force
multiplier for small, forwarded deployed special operating
forces teams.
The committee believes that accelerated procurement of
these systems will add significantly to special forces tactical
capabilities and notes that both of these items are on the
unfunded priority list of the Commander, Special Operations
Command.
The committee recommends $45.6 million for SOF intelligence
systems, an increase of $10.0 million for the procurement of an
additional 16 JTWS-A and an increase of $8.0 million for
additional SOTVS/RSTA.
Special weapons observation reconnaissance direct action system
The budget request contained $233.8 million for Special
Operations Forces (SOF) operational enhancements, but included
no funds for the Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance
Direct Action System (SWORDS). The committee understands that
the SWORDS mobile weapons system is an innovative small robot
armed with standard issue automatic weapons, allowing special
forces operators to engage the enemy at a standoff distance of
approximately 1,000 meters. The committee understands that the
system has been successful in its initial deployment in
Afghanistan.
The committee recommends $243.8 million for SOF operational
enhancements, an increase of $10.0 million for the procurement
of additional SWORDS mobile weapons systems.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
2006 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for UH-60M/MH-60
Helicopters
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army 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 461
helicopters in the UH-60M configuration, and, acting as the
executive agent for the Department of the Navy in the MH-60S
configuration.
Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Apache Modernized
Target Acquisition Designation Sights and Pilot Night Vision Sensors
This section would authorize the Army to enter into
multiyear contracts for the procurement of Modernized Target
Acquisition Designation Sights and Pilot Night Vision Sensors.
Section 113--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Apache Block II
Conversion
This section would authorize the Army to enter into
multiyear contracts for the procurement of Apache Block II
conversions.
Section 114--Acquisition Strategy for Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Programs
This section would require the Army and the Marine Corps to
enter into a joint service program for the procurement of a new
vehicle class of tactical wheeled vehicles. The committee
understands the Army is actively engaged in implementing a
revised tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) modernization and
recapitalization strategy with the intent to recapitalize,
modernize and eventually replace its existing light, medium,
and heavy tactical wheeled vehicles with either a new next
generation vehicle class or more capable recapitalized tactical
wheeled vehicles that have integrated new technologies and
incorporated lessons learned from operations involving the
global war on terrorism. The committee supports Army investment
into its TWV fleet. Cost reduction strategies, reliability and
maintainability improvement initiatives, and life cycle support
recommendations are encouraged by the committee.
The committee is aware that costs of Department of Defense
weapons systems, including non-developmental platforms such as
tactical wheeled vehicles continue to escalate and note the
benefit competition can bring to weapon systems and vehicle
platforms. The committee recognizes a major component of this
TWV strategy involves a competition in calendar year 2006,
defined as a watershed event by the Army.
The committee directs that should the Army or the Marine
Corps as a result of this competition, choose to award a new
non-developmental production contract for a new vehicle class
of TWV other than those referenced above as modifications,
upgrades or product improvements to the existing fleet, the
contract should be executed as a joint service program between
the Army and the Marine Corps. This joint service program
should be validated and approved by the Joint Requirement
Oversight Council and the Secretary of Defense.
The committee believes its imperative for the Department to
take advantage of economies of scale in production of
particular platforms that provide essentially the same function
for ground force combat service support and logistic missions.
Section 115--Limitation on Army Modular Force Initiative
This section would set forth a $3.0 billion limitation on
acquisition obligations by the Army towards the Modular Force
Initiative in fiscal year 2006 until receipt by the
congressional defense committees of a report outlining the
specific requirements as stated in this provision. The
committee understands the Army's force restructuring plan
referred to as ``Army Modularity'' will require dramatic
increases in its budget for personnel and equipment.
To date, the Department of Defense has announced that $48.0
billion has been budgeted for the Army for modularity for
fiscal years 2005-2011. Minimal information has been provided
to the congressional defense committees on defined requirements
and budget detail. Further, the Army planned to fund the first
two years of its modularity requirement through emergency
supplemental appropriations, limiting the ability of the House
Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed
Services to exercise their oversight responsibilities. However,
the committee was recently advised by the Army that the fiscal
year 2006 budget request includes $788.0 million in its
procurement request for modularity.
This section would limit the Army's ability to obligate
funds authorized for procurement to not more than $3.0 billion
until 30 days after submitting a report to the congressional
defense committees for its modularity program. This report
would include:
(1) The programs and the acquisition objectives for
those programs;
(2) The budget included for modularity in the fiscal
year 2007 Future Years Defense Program;
(3) The unfunded requirements, as applicable, that
would preclude meeting the acquisition objective; and
(4) The acquisition plan for Army modularity funded
in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief,
2005.
The conference report (H. Rept. 109-72) accompanying the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-
13) directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by
September 1, 2005, to the congressional defense committees
detailing DOD's long-range plan for executing and funding
modularity to include acquisition requirements. The committee
encourages the Department to include the reporting requirements
as required in this provision in its September 2005 report.
Section 116--Contract Requirement for Objective Individual Combat
Weapon--Increment One
This section would require the Secretary of Army to award
the contract for procurement of the Objective Individual Combat
Weapon (OICW), Increment One using full and open competition.
In addition, before appropriated funds are obligated, the
Secretary shall provide a report to the congressional defense
committees that certifies this contract was conducted using
full and open competition.
The committee believes the Secretary of Army should examine
the requirement for the OICW, Increment One to determine
whether this is a developmental or non-developmental item and
to determine accordingly the appropriate period for review for
requests for proposals.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Virginia Class Submarine Program
This section would limit the total amount obligated or
expended for procurement of five Virginia class submarines
designated as SSN-779, SSN-780, SSN-781, SSN-782, and SSN-783.
Section 122--LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program
This section would require that the total amount obligated
or expended for the procurement of each ship of the replacement
amphibious assault ship (LHA(R)) program may not exceed $2.0
billion. Also, this section limits the obligation or
expenditure of funds for the LHA(R) program until the Secretary
of Defense certifies that the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council has approved a detailed operational requirements
document and there exists a stable design for the LHA(R) class
of vessels.
Section 123--Future Major Surface Combatant, Destroyer Type
This section would require that the total amount obligated
or expended for the procurement of the future major surface
combatant, destroyer type (DD(X)) may not exceed $1.7 billion
each, and authorizes $700.0 million for technology development
and demonstration for this class of vessel. Further, this
section establishes acquisition plan requirements for the
DD(X).
Section 124--Littoral Combat Ship Program
This section would require that the total amount obligated
or expended for the procurement of each ship for the Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) program, including the amounts for the
mission models, may not exceed $400.0 million. Further, this
section limits the acquisition of additional LCSs until the
Secretary of Defense submits the results of an operational
evaluation of the first four LCSs and certifies that a stable
design exists for this class of vessels.
Section 125--Authorization of Two Additional Arleigh Burke Class
Destroyers
This section would authorize $2.5 billion for the
construction of two additional Arleigh Burke class destroyers
under a single, competitively awarded contract.
Section 126--Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a contract and commence overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl
Vinson (CVN-70) nuclear aircraft carrier during fiscal year
2006 with funding provided in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
Section 127--Report on Propulsion System Alternatives for Surface
Combatants
This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the
assessment of alternative propulsion methods for surface
combatants. Operations and support costs, which include the
cost of personnel, maintenance, and other costs such as fuel,
represent a higher percentage of the total life cycle costs for
Navy ships than research, development and procurement costs.
Therefore, it is critical that the Navy make every effort to
design future ships that are cost-effective to operate so that
it can develop a force structure that is affordable and
sustainable over the long term. In recent years, the Navy has
used conventional propulsion systems that rely on fossil fuel
for its surface combatants and nuclear propulsion systems for
its submarines and most aircraft carriers. However, the
committee is concerned that some of the assumptions and factors
that have guided past Navy decisions on propulsion systems may
require reassessment as the Navy looks to design an affordable
force that is capable of meeting future security challenges.
For example, technological advances have enabled greater
efficiency in both nuclear and conventional propulsion systems
in recent years. Moreover, oil prices have risen significantly
in the past few years and global markets are likely to face
future difficulties in meeting global demands for oil,
particularly considering the explosive growth in some
developing nations' economies.
The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations
guidance for 2005 directed the Naval Sea Systems Command to
work with the Office of Naval Research to study and develop
proposals for alternative propulsion methods for surface
combatants. The committee supports the need for this study and
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report explaining
the Navy's methodology, conclusions and recommendations of the
study by the submission of the President's Budget for Fiscal
Year 2007, required by section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code.
Section 128--Aircraft Carrier Force Structure
This section would mandate the Secretary of Defense to
maintain a minimum force structure of 12 aircraft carriers.
This section would further direct the Secretary to take all the
necessary steps to maintain the USS John F. Kennedy in a fully
mission capable status. Additionally, the committee would
recommend authorization of $60.0 million for the operation and
maintenance of the USS John F. Kennedy.
The committee believes that the Navy's aircraft carrier
force structure must be maintained at 12 in order to meet
potential global commitments. The committee notes that in order
for the USS John F. Kennedy to be maintained at full
operational capability, the Navy must reschedule the recently
cancelled shipyard overhaul, and directs the Navy to do so. In
the interim, the committee expects the Navy to take full
advantage of routine maintenance outside a shipyard to maintain
the USS John F. Kennedy as capable as possible until it enters
the shipyard.
Section 129--Contingent Transfer of Additional Funds for CVN-21 Carrier
Replacement Program
This section would transfer $86.7 million for additional
funding for construction of CVN-21 from Defense-wide Operation
and Maintenance to Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy if the
Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation certifies that such
additional funds are sufficient to move CVN-21 construction
start from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2007.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 131--Multiyear Procurement Authority for C-17 Aircraft
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to enter into a multiyear contract, beginning with the fiscal
year 2006 program year, for procurement of up to 42 additional
C-17 aircraft.
Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters
Section 141--Requirement that all Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Use
Specified Standard Data Link
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that all tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) of the
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are equipped with the
standard tactical UAV data link known as the Tactical Common
Data Link (TCDL) and configured to data formats consistent with
the architectural standard for tactical UAVs, known as STANAG
4586. This provision applies to the Pioneer UAV, Shadow UAV,
and other UAV types as determined by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The
committee would further direct the Secretary of each military
department to submit a report to Congress providing the
Secretary's certification as to whether or not all tactical
UAVs are in compliance with the standard data link.
Section 142--Limitation on Initiation of New Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Systems
This section would preclude procurement of new unmanned
aerial vehicle systems by the military services without the
written approval of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $69.4 billion for research,
development, test, & evaluation (RDT&E). The committee
recommends $69.4 billion, an increase of $112.9 million to the
budget request.
Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $9.7 billion for Army
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $9.8 billion, an increase of $43.5
million to the budget request.
Items of Special Interest
Abrams improved track
The budget request contained $142.9 million in PE 63005A
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology programs,
of which, no funds were included for the Abrams Improved Track
program. The Abrams Improved Track program expects to reduce
life cycle costs of the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank platform by
20 percent.
The committee is aware the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank
platform, on average puts seven to eight years of operational
use on a vehicle in a single year deployment to Iraq. The
committee notes in some cases tanks have put on more than 1,000
miles of operational use per month in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The committee understands this higher level of operational
tempo requires additional maintenance costs and also recognizes
the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank will continue to be the primary
combat vehicle in the Army's inventory until at least 2050. The
committee understands the Abrams Improved Track program can
generate better cost savings, and increase reliability,
availability, and maintainability of the M1 Abrams Main Battle
Tank fleet.
Therefore, the committee recommends $147.5 million for PE
63005A, an increase of $4.8 million, to complete the final
phase of development for the Abrams Improved Track program.
Accelerated development of heavy-fuel turbine engine
The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 63003A for
aviation advanced technology, but included no funds to
accelerate development of light-weight heavy fuel turbine
engines.
The committee notes that the modern battlefield mandates
use of heavy fuel engines to simplify logistics and increase
safety. The lightweight turbine engine offers advantages for
aerial vehicles. In addition, the modern turbine engine coupled
to emerging electrical generator technology offers the near-
term ability to reduce size and weight of ground power
generators by an order of magnitude.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63003A to accelerate development of the heavy fuel turbine
engine.
Advanced amputee treatment research and development
The budget request contained $74.7 million in PE 62787A for
medical technology applied research, but included no funds to
continue the program in clinical and applied collaborative
research in amputee treatment, prosthetics, and rehabilitation.
The committee commends the Army for its efforts to initiate
a collaborative applied and clinical prosthetic research
activity in order to provide the best possible care for
patients who have experienced combat injuries resulting in
traumatic amputation. Established by the Army Surgeon General,
the Amputee Care Center and the Army Amputee Patient Care
Program at Walter Reed Army Medical Center provide state-of-
the-art treatment and are the center of a multi-site,
coordinated complex of facilities, which involve regional
military medical centers, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and other military and civilian treatment facilities. The goal
of the program is to ensure that amputee patients receive the
kind of care that will allow them to lead lives unconstrained
by their amputation. The committee notes that a sustained
research effort is necessary to achieve the goals of the
program and strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to
provide funding in the program for that purpose in future
budget requests.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
62787A to continue the Army program in clinical and applied
collaborative research in amputee treatment, prosthetics, and
rehabilitation.
Advanced battery technology initiative
The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 62705A for
applied research in electronics and electronic devices.
The committee continues to note continuing requirements for
small, light-weight, efficient, and portable battery and non-
battery power sources for U.S. forces and of on-going applied
research and development activities of the military departments
that address these requirements. The committee is aware of a
number of emerging battery and non-battery power technologies
that have the potential for meeting the requirements of the
military services, including alkaline and lithium batteries,
fuel cells and other technologies. The committee recommends
that such technologies be considered for potential funded
research and development under the services' on-going programs
on the basis of technical merit, cost-effectiveness, and the
potential of a particular technology to meet service needs.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
62705A for the portable battery power technology initiative.
Advanced carbon nanotechnology
The budget request contained $137.9 million in PE 61102A
for defense research sciences, but included no funding for
advanced carbon nanotechnology.
The committee is aware that advanced carbon nanotechnology
has the potential for significant advances in the development
of new sensors.
The committee recommends $143.9 million in PE 61102A for
defense research sciences, an increase of $6.0 million for a
multi-institution, peer reviewed program for development of
advanced carbon nanotechnology.
Advanced lightweight composite armor materials for ballistic impact and
blast protection
The budget request contained $17.6 million in PE 62105A for
materials technology, but included no funding for advanced
lightweight composite armor materials for ballistic impact and
blast protection.
The committee is aware of the increasing ballistic and
blast threat to vehicles on the battlefield. The committee
notes that an integrated analytical, development, manufacturing
and testing program is required to develop new higher
performance, light weight composites for vehicle and personal
armor.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62105A for advanced lightweight armor materials.
Advanced weapons technology
The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 62307A for
advanced weapons technology.
The committee understands the need to carry out applied
research in support of existing and future missile defense
technologies. The committee is specifically aware of the need
to conduct research on systemic issues common to Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense, Patriot Advanced Capability-3/Medium
Extended Air Defense System, Ground-based Midcourse Defense,
and future systems in areas such as radar and radio frequency
sensors, electronics and micro-fabrication, optical sensors,
and composite material and structures.
The committee recommends $31.1 million in PE 62307A, an
increase of $10.0 million for missile defense applied
technology research conducted by the Army Space and Missile
Defense Command.
Aerostat joint project office
The budget request contained $106.4 million in PE 12419A
for the Aerostat Joint Project Office.
The committee understands the critical role that the Joint
Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor
(JLENS) 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 $108.4 million in PE 12419A, an
increase of $2.0 million for MEMS demonstration radar system
project completion and additional critical technology
demonstration.
Applied communications and information networking
The budget request contained $45.3 million in PE 63008A for
electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funding
for applied communications and information networking (ACIN).
The committee realizes that the goal of ACIN is to
revolutionize military doctrine and methods by enhancing 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 $3.1 billion in PE 64645A for
armored systems modernization, including $105.3 million for
reconnaissance platforms and sensors; $86.4 million for
unmanned ground vehicles; $2.5 million for unattended sensors;
$61.6 million for sustainment; $2.3 billion for system of
systems engineering and program management; and $549.2 million
for manned ground vehicles, as part of approximately $3.9
billion total amount requested for the Future Combat Systems
(FCS) program in over 50 program elements.
The Army had allocated $19.0 billion for FCS research and
development during fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Last year
the Army added two years to the System Development and
Demonstration (SDD) Phase and increased the cost to $22.0
billion. Now the Army has delayed the program to 2016 and
increased the development costs to $30.3 billion. Additionally,
theprogram has been restructured into four spirals that are
designed to field incremental capability into the current force.
Because of its size and importance to the Army, FCS would dominate the
Army's investment accounts and priorities over the next decade. The
announcement that modularity will be undertaken during the same time
period as FCS development has caused concern because the combined costs
of $30.3 billion in the Future Years Defense Program for FCS and $69.0
billion for modularity are well above the expected Army funding
profile.
Under the FCS system-of-systems approach all 18 systems are
developed simultaneously, even though major differences exist
in the developmental and fielding timelines of these systems.
Originally, there were 157 development programs, referred to as
``complementary programs,'' funded outside of the armored
systems modernization-FCS program element. These
``complementary programs,'' described by the Army as necessary
to completely field FCS are in most instances the on-going
technology development that should have been completed for FCS
before entry into SDD. The complementary programs and projects
are just as much FCS program-related as the projects within the
armored systems modernization program element. Although the FCS
hallmark is network centric war fighting, armored systems
modernization-FCS program element itself contains no project
for a network. The network is formed by the Warfighter
Information Network Tactical (WIN-T) and the Joint Tactical
Radio System (JTRS). Both of these systems are being developed
outside of the FCS program structure as complementary programs.
Further, JTRS has already been restructured due to schedule and
cost overruns and now faces another restructure with an
additional 24 month schedule delay and cost increase.
The committee has numerous concerns with the FCS program:
(1) The Office of the Secretary of Defense approved
FCS entry into SDD in May 2003 without established
program requirements, a network architecture or mature
technologies. The Department of Defense historical
acquisition record indicates that proceeding into SDD
with unproven technology, will likely result in
schedule slips and substantial cost overruns. And in
fact, the FCS program has already been restructured at
least three times. In a prepared statement for the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on March
16, 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
indicated: ``The FCS is at significant risk for not
delivering required capability within budgeted
resources. * * * The program's level of knowledge is
far below that suggested by best practices or
Department of Defense policy: Nearly 2 years after
program launch and with $4.6 billion invested,
requirements are not firm and only 1 of over 50
technologies are mature. As planned, the program will
attain the level of knowledge in 2008 that it should
have had in 2003. * * * To make FCS an effective
acquisition program different approaches must be
considered, including (A) setting the first stage of
the program to demonstrate military capability, mature
technology, and firm requirements; and (B) bundling its
other capabilities into advanced technology
demonstrations until they can be put in a future stage
* * *;''
(2) FCS program requirements have yet to be
established. Under the current organizational
construct, the GAO indicates there are as many as
10,000 individual program and project requirements;
(3) Many of the FCS systems, including unmanned
systems and sensors, have parallel research and
development programs outside of FCS in the Army, other
services, and/or the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD). As an example, between what the Army classifies
as FCS and non-FCS program elements, there are at least
10 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) projects in
development. This does not include UAV programs being
developed for the Army by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency;
(4) Technology maturity varies among the various
systems and in most cases does not support being
considered ready for SDD;
(5) How the FCS concept would provide for
survivability against the asymmetrical threat that our
military services have experienced in the global war on
terrorism, remains to be demonstrated;
(6) The manned vehicle concepts are at least five
tons heavier than what the Army has established as its
manned vehicle weight requirement; and
(7) No current cost estimate exists for the FCS
program. With the added cost of modularization, it is
questionable whether both FCS and modularization are
affordable.
The committee believes that the Army would benefit from a
restructured FCS program that establishes a vision and future
forces architecture for the Army as a whole. It is not
productive to have a vision of two future Armies, one FCS-Army
and the rest of the Army. Even under the best of circumstances,
with everything going as planned and resources being available
to fund all of the Army's extensive needs, by 2025, only 20
percent of the modularized Army would include FCS units. WIN-T,
JTRS, UAV programs, ground sensors, and common operating
environment, should be interoperable with the whole Army, not
just the FCS-Army. Projects and supporting technology should be
developed and demonstrated first and not based on a program
schedule where the Army is trying ``to invent on a schedule.''
The committee further believes that FCS should be defined
by what is currently described as the system-of-systems common
operating environment, program management, and sustainment, the
largest current FCS project. The remaining projects should be
combined with program elements of similar purpose and/or
commensurate with their requirements and technology maturity.
Further, the Department of the Army should establish the
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance information technology
architecture for the future force and mandate adherence to this
architecture in the development of new systems as well as
modification of legacy systems.
Accordingly, the committee directs that:
(1) A new program element, PE 64782A, be designated
FCS common operating environment within SDD and
comprised of the current projects F55 and F61, with an
authorization of $2.3 billion, the budget request;
(2) A new program element, PE 63645A, be designated
armored systems modernization within the advanced
component development and prototype budget activity,
comprised of the current project designated F57, with
an authorization of $100.0 million, a reduction of
$449.2 million;
(3) A new program element, PE 63303A, be designated
reconnaissance platforms and sensors within the
advanced component development and prototypes budget
activity, comprised of Project F52, class I and IV
reconnaissance platforms and sensors, with an
authorization of $47.2 million, the budget request;
(4) Class II and III reconnaissance platforms and
sensors be incorporated into PE 63003A, with an
authorization of $58.1 million, the budget request;
(5) Project F54, unattended sensors, be incorporated
into PE 64766A, Tactical Surveillance Systems, with an
authorization of $2.5 million, the budget request; and
(6) A new program element, PE 63304A, be designated
robotic ground systems within the advanced component
development and prototypes budget activity, comprised
of Project F53, unmanned ground vehicles, with an
authorization of $86.4 million, the budget request.
Army medical peer-reviewed applied research and advanced technology
development initiative
The budget request contained $74.7 million in PE 62787A for
applied research in medical technology and $45.2 million in PE
63002A for medical advanced technology development.
The committee notes that the primary goal of medical
research and development in the Department of Defense is to
sustain medical technology to effectively protect and improve
the survivability of U.S. armed forces in a variety of settings
including, but not limited to: conventional battlefields, areas
of low-intensity conflict, and military operations other than
war. Operations of U.S. forces in the global war on terrorism
have placed a premium on the need for a range of medical
technologies in the areas of infectious diseases, combat
casualty care, military operational medicine, and health
hazards for materials, that are the core applied technology for
the Army's military technology applied research program.
Changing military threats on the world's battlefields and
homeland security requirements place more emphasis on the need
for responsive technology options that could address the
threat; the ability to quickly assess, develop, and demonstrate
the technology; and then, the ability to rapidly insert or
deploy the technology to the field. The committee also notes
the wealth of new concepts from the nation's medical science
and technology base and the recommendations that the committee
receives for exploitation of particular technologies for
addressing emerging medical requirements. The committee
endorses the Army's peer-reviewed medical technology research
and development program in which emerging medical technologies
and concepts compete for funding on the basis of peer-reviewed
technical merit and the contribution that the technology would,
if implemented, make to the health and well being of the armed
forces.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE
62787A and an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63002A, for the
Army medical technology peer-reviewed applied research and
advanced technology development programs, respectively.
Army space and missile defense architecture analysis program
The budget request contained $83.1 million in PE 63327A for
Army air and missile defense systems engineering, but included
no funding for the Army space and missile defense (ASMD)
architecture analysis program.
The committee places a priority on the development of a
transformational capability. The committee recognizes the
contributions of the ASMD architecture analysis program towards
providing critical analytical, modeling and simulation tools
supporting advanced concepts and architectures for the Army's
integrated air and missile defense systems program.
The committee recommends $88.1 million in PE 63327A, an
increase of $5.0 million for the ASMD architecture analysis
program.
Center for rotorcraft innovation
The budget request included $34.3 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 will expand collaborative rotorcraft
research and development already underway between the
rotorcraft industry and its government partners in the National
Rotorcraft Technology Center, and will focus its new research
efforts on dual-use technologies that have national security
and homeland defense applications. CRI is the only effort of
its kind and will be a catalyst for the 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.
Centers of excellence
The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 61104A for
university and industry research centers and $1.9 million for
university centers of excellence.
The committee notes the current Army effort to harness
university research expertise for Army-unique science and
technology problems. The committee further notes the Army
initiative to partner university researchers at Historically
Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI)
with Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Battle Labs
for the acceleration of research to actual technology
demonstration. The committee notes current priorities include
efforts to improve tactical mobility, reduce logistics
infrastructure, and increase rotorcraft survivability. The
committee supports such efforts yet urges further advances in
the cognitive research areas of modeling and simulation, data
fusion, and human systems integration.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
61104A for university centers of excellence to support human
systems integration modeling, simulation, data fusion, and
related efforts.
Combat vehicle electronics
The budget request contained $12.0 million in PE 23735A for
combat vehicle improvements, but included no funding to develop
standardized next generation electronics architectures for
current combat vehicle programs.
The committee is aware that current combat vehicles face
accelerated component obsolescence issues.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
23735A to develop standardized next generation electronics
architectures for current and future combat vehicle programs.
Common remote operating weapon station
The budget request contained $34.6 million in PE 64601A for
infantry support weapons but included no funds for the Common
Remote Operating Weapon Station (CROWS) Light development
program. The budget request also contained $56.4 million in PE
63640M but included no funds for the CROWS program.
The CROWS system is a tactical vehicle mounted, stabilized
remote weapon station system that provides day and night target
detection, recognition, and engagement at long distances while
allowing the soldier to remain protected by an armored vehicle;
accurate shoot on-the-move capability, and one-shot-one-hit
accuracy that minimizes collateral damage. Thecommittee notes
that the United States Central Command issued an urgent needs statement
for additional CROWS systems in December 2004. The committee applauds
the Army's expeditious manner in satisfying this urgent requirement and
notes CROWS has proven its capability successfully and effectively in
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). As such the committee feels CROWS could
also prove just as effective for marines operating in Iraq, and
recommends providing six systems for test and evaluation by the Marine
Corps.
The committee recognizes certain combat support and combat
service support (CS/CSS) vehicle platforms cannot support the
weight and size of the currently fielded CROWS system.
To address this need, the committee understands the Army
has developed a reduced weight and size configuration of CROWS
called CROWS Light. The committee supports this effort and
believes this system can enhance force protection,
survivability, and lethality of CS/CSS units performing
critical convoy operations in OIF.
The committee recommends $42.6 million in PE 64601A, an
increase of $8.0 million to complete the development, testing,
and accelerate fielding of CROWS Light systems and recommends
$58.4 million in PE63640M, an increase of $2.0 million for
CROWS test and evaluation by the Marine Corps.
Communications and electronics cost module
The budget request contained $12.1 million in PE 63006A for
the research and development of Command, Control,
Communications Advanced Technology.
The committee believes that the Communications and
Electronics Cost Module (CECM) is a critical component to
realize the Department of the Army's service-wide planned force
restructure and to support appropriate homeland security
response issues. The CECM is part of an advanced solution
project that accelerates collaborative, near real-time trade-
off analysis of prospective system design changes. In addition,
the CECM allows decision makers to have affordable analysis,
while addressing program managers' concerns throughout the
program lifecycle. The CECM simultaneously integrates cost
estimation, computer aided design activities, and work
breakdown structures in a collaborative, web-enabled,
efficient, and secure environment, thus reducing the cycle time
in the decision process from the beginning and throughout the
acquisition lifecycle.
The committee recommends $14.1 million in PE 63006A for the
research and development of Command, Control, Communications
Advanced Technology, an increase of $2.0 million for the
development of the CECM.
Distributed common ground system
The budget request contained $156.7 million for the
research and development of the Distributed Common Ground
System (DCGS).
The committee notes that the DCGS program is beginning to
address how data is processed from various sources. The
committee believes this is a critical element in the data
enterprise integration of all DCGS. Without a clear plan that
addresses all DCGS capabilities, to include access,
exploitation, and dissemination of information and data from
other sources, DCGS will not be able to fully maximize its
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance processing
capabilities. In addition, the committee is concerned that
without a unified development structure built on a validated
Capability and Maturity Model (CMM) standard that strictly
controls DCGS requirements and correlates software with fewer
defects, DCGS will continue to be a pretext for the services to
buy new hardware.
Given the technical, developmental, and management
challenges, the committee believes that DCGS should reevaluate
its software development and data management structure to
determine if the present organizational configuration will be
able to support the transition to DCGS. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Networks and Information Integration, and the DCGS council to
submit a report by February 15, 2006, to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, and
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence addressing
the standards for all legacy hardware and software
implementation into the joint DCGS architecture; how the
processes, key practices and common features in software will
mature jointly; and how current and planned data will be
handled regardless of the source or asset. Additionally, this
report must include a fielding plan for all DCGS.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following for the
research and development of the DCGS program: $73.3 million in
PE 35208A, a decrease of $18.3 million, and $32.4 million for
PE 35208F, a decrease of $8.0 million, $12.3 million in PE
35208N, $1.8 million in PE 35208BQ, $3.7 million in PE 35208G,
and $1.0 million in PE 35208L.
Excalibur XM982
The budget request contained $113.4 million in PE 64814A,
artillery munitions, but included no funds for Excalibur XM982
life cycle improvements.
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. 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 fiscal year 2006 cost reduction efforts would
build upon previous work and expand into the potential
production cost reduction of the canard actuation system and
insensitive munitions design improvements for the base and
warhead of the projectile identified in the lean design review.
Cost reduction efforts will be expanded to the Excalibur XM982
common guidance capability, which is a system commonality in
other weapons development programs.
Therefore, the committee recommends $123.4 million in PE
64814A, an increase of $10.0 million for the Excalibur XM982
lifecycle improvement program.
Explosive and narcotic detection devices
The budget request contained $19.3 million in PE 62712A,
countermine systems, but included no funds for continued
development of explosive and narcotic detection devices for
vehicles and cargo containers proceeding through entry control
points at various, worldwide Department of Defense facilities.
The committee notes the significance of improving
capabilities of future force protection equipment. There are
two detection devices currently under development which have
the potential to be used for detecting trace amounts of
explosives and narcotics on the inside and outside of vehicles
and cargo containers. These devices should be able to
complement and enhance current force protection equipment in
place, or substitute when needed, for explosive and narcotic
detecting canines that are unavailable to perform these duties.
Therefore, the committee recommends $27.3 million in PE
62712A, an increase of $8.0 million for continued development
of explosive and narcotic detection devices.
Fire support technology improvement program
The budget request contained $16.1 million in PE 23726A for
advanced field artillery tactical data systems, but included no
funds for the Fire Support Technology Improvement (FSTI)
program.
The FSTI program will examine and exploit emerging
technologies that could improve artillery fire support
efficiency and performance.
The committee recognizes the need for more rapid precision
engagement of artillery targets requires artillery battle
management systems that can enable soldiers to rapidly geo-
reference and analyze relevant imagery and/or information;
determine the status of the possible firing elements; issue
fire commands; and effectively conduct battle damage
assessments all in real time. The committee is aware this
program's purpose is to identify gaps and develop solutions to
assimilate multi-source (satellite, aircraft, and unmanned
aerial vehicle) imagery and information, and accomplish rapid
geo-referencing and shooting of precision artillery
engagements.
The committee recommends $21.0 million in PE 23726A, an
increase of $5.0 million for the continuation of the FSTI
program.
Flexible display initiative
The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 62705A for
electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding 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 $11.4
million in PE 62705A for the flexible display initiative.
Gas-engine driven air conditioning system demonstrations
The budget request contained $7.3 million in PE 63734A for
military engineering, but included no funding 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 $7.0 million in PE 63734A for GEDAC system
demonstrations.
Geospatial information decision support-single integrated air picture
The budget request included $150.3 million in PE 63327A, PE
632879N, PE 27434F, PE 27443F, and PE 20631M for the
development of the Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP). This
program seeks to provide a common aerial view of the
battlespace for the warfighter.
The committee supports technologies and capabilities that
provide the warfighter with a single integrated air, ground,
space, and maritime picture that is the product of fused,
common, continual, and accurate data. However, the committee is
concerned that SIAP only addresses the air picture, and could
become another stove-pipe system that will not interoperate
with the ground, space, or maritime pictures. The committee
supports the development of one true common operational picture
that will provide the warfighter with an unambiguous, real-time
picture of the battlespace.
The committee is aware that the Army has requirements to
provide a consistent, accurate, and timely understanding of how
space assets and capabilities affect the battlespace. Meeting
this requirement demands tools that fuse geospatial and
operational data for air defense and satellite control. The
Geospatial Information Decision Support (GIDS) for SIAP is an
intelligent software tool for warfare commanders that receives
tactical information from multiple real-time ground, air, and
space-based tactical data sources to provide a comprehensive
battlespace picture. The committee understands GIDS-SIAP will
also be extended to support Army tactical missile defense
needs.
The committee believes GIDS-SIAP may build the bridge
between SIAP and an integrated common operational picture.
However, the committee notes that this is not the final or all-
encompassing solution to developing a true common operational
picture.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 15, 2006, on a formal acquisition strategy to clearly
define the development and service-level implementation of
SIAP, and a coordinated investment strategy for developing all
common tactical pictures such as the air, ground, maritime, and
space views.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $157.3 million for
the research and development of SIAP, an increase of $7.0
million in PE 63327A, for the evaluation of software and field
demonstration of GIDS-SIAP.
Handheld detection systems
The budget request contained $74.9 million in PE 63004A for
weapons and munitions advanced technology but contained no
funding for the miniaturized spectrometer identification
system.
The committee is concerned with the well-being of uniformed
personnel due to the pending threat of chemical weapons. The
committee supports efforts to develop handheld sensing
equipment to improve timely detection of evolving and existing
threats.
Therefore, the committee recommends $77.9 million in PE
63004A, an increase of $3.0 million to develop the miniaturized
spectrometer identification system.
Human systems integration
The budget request contained $17.5 million in PE 62716A for
human factors engineering applied research, $68.5 million in PE
63236N for warfighter sustainment advanced technology
development, and $79.4 million in PE 62202F for applied
research in human effectiveness.
The committee recognizes human systems integration
initiatives provide a means for reducing total lifecycle costs
of weapons programs, and strongly supports efforts to consider
human systems integration issues early in the acquisition
cycle. The committee believes that further institutionalization
and standardization of human systems integration methodologies
and modeling tools are needed. The committee also remains
concerned about the level of support and coordination of these
initiatives within each of the military departments and
throughout the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee urges
the Department to complete a comprehensive review and critical
assessment of human systems integration based upon the
perspectives of the acquisition, personnel, and operations and
management communities. The committee expects that such a
review would include a review of acquisition programs that
utilize such initiatives, and an assessment of the relative
level of support within each military department.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5
million in PE 62716A for the development of manpower and
personnel integration tools for modeling and predicting soldier
and system performance; an increase of $6.0 million in PE
63236N to develop cognitive and physiological research data
under the Navy's system engineering, acquisition and personnel
integration program; and an increase of $3.5 million in PE
62202F for the development of new training algorithms for the
human performance integration tool program. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive
review and assessment of human systems integration programs
within the Department and to submit a report of the results to
the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2005.
Further, committee recommends that a panel of experts at the
National Defense University collaborate, consult and
independently review the DOD's assessment and submit a report
of the results to the congressional defense committees within
six months of initiation.
Hydrogen proton exchange membrane
The budget request contained $64.9 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no
funding for the hydrogen proton exchange membrane (PEM) ambient
pressure fuel cell medium/heavy duty vehicle demonstration
program.
The committee is aware that the hydrogen PEM fuel cell is
to demonstrate zero emission, ambient pressure, highly
efficient hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles in various
operating situations and conditions. The committee notes that
this development supports the government's objective of
tripling fuel economy while reducing harmful emissions.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
62601A for the hydrogen proton exchange membrane (PEM) ambient
pressure fuel cell medium/heavy duty vehicle demonstration
program.
Hyperspectral longwave imager for the tactical environment
The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 63710A for
night vision but included no funding for hyperspectral longwave
imager for the tactical environment (HyLITE).
The committee is aware that recent operations have both
demonstrated the need for a day/night hyperspectral day/night
sensor and provided a basis for improvements to the prototype
HyLITE.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.2
million in PE 63710A for HyLITE.
Integrated digital environment service model
The budget request contained $42.5 million in PE 63772A for
the development of Advanced Tactical Computer Science and
Sensor Technology.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has a
myriad of individual systems that have been designed, produced,
and fielded to respond to specific threats, mission
requirements, and information needs. The committee notes there
is no single method or system to track and evaluate the
interoperability characteristics of these systems, or to ensure
system-of- systems configuration will work together in the
battlespace.
The command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance Integrated
Digital Environment Service Model (C4ISR-IDESM) seeks to
provide the information technology infrastructure,
applications, and support services necessary to configure and
manage enterprise data. The C4ISR-IDESM uses the internet on a
subscription basis as needed to conduct C4ISR interoperability
analysis.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $47.5 million in PE
63772A, an increase of $5.0 million for research and
development of C4ISR-IDESM.
Joint Common Missile
The budget request included no funds for the Joint Common
Missile (JCM) program.
The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year
2005 projected a requirement of $271.3 million for fiscal year
2006. The committee also understands the JCM was one of the
first weapon systems to be validated by the joint requirements
process instituted by the Secretary of Defense and the first
program approved by the Department of Defense Joint
Requirements Oversight Committee through the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process. Further,
the committee notes that the JCM is currently the only air-to-
ground missile with the potential to fulfill the six critical
capability gaps identified in the JCIDS analysis, such as
targeting time sensitive moving targets, mitigation of
collateral damage, and targeting diverse target sets. Thus far,
the Department of the Army and Department of the Navy have
invested $406.4 million in research and development for the
JCM.
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary
of Defense to reevaluate the cancellation of the Joint Common
Missile program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the Congressional defense committees by
December 31, 2005, that contains a Joint Requirements Oversight
Council memorandum explaining how the Department of Defense
will mitigate the capability gaps identified in the JCIDS
analysis; a current and forecasted inventory of all air to
ground missiles remaining in war reserve stockpiles; an
explanation of compliance strategy and associated costs for the
Department to comply with the insensitive munitions
requirements of current air to ground missiles; and lastly,
provide a cost comparison analysis of continuing the Joint
Common Missile program versus JCM termination and continued
procurement of legacy air to ground missiles to fulfill mission
requirements.
JP-8 soldier fuel cell
The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 62705A for
electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding for
JP-8 soldier fuel cell.
The committee is aware that light, compact, high-capacity
power sources to power a variety of devices are essential to
success on the modern battlefield. The committee notes that an
effort is on-going to modify a commercial fuel cell to run on
standard, readily available JP-8 fuel.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62705A for development of the JP-8 soldier fuel cell.
Lean munitions
The budget request contained $68.5 million in PE 78045A for
manufacturing science and technology, but included no funds for
the third phase of the Lean Munitions project.
The committee notes that the Army Armaments Research,
Development and Engineering Command (ARDEC) is responsible for
90 percent of the munitions produced and utilized by the U.S.
Army. The committee further notes that the Army's increased
operational tempo and transformation plans support the need to
reduce the time and cost for development and production of
munitions used by our armed forces. The committee believes that
the use of a standards-based, model-driven design and
manufacturing lifecycle support environment would enable faster
and lower cost production and sustainment of current and future
munitions systems.
The committee understands that the third phase of the Lean
Munitions project will focus on enterprise-wide integration and
utilization of three-dimensional, model-based, standardized
product data. Further, the Lean Munitions project will be
expanded from a pilot demonstration to a full-scale production
of machined parts, integration ARDEC's design and manufacturing
lifecycle support environment, and implementation of the Lean
business process into the supply chain.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE
78045A to continue the Lean Munitions project.
Leishmaniasis diagnostics
The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63807A for
medical systems advanced development.
The committee notes that over 700 U.S. troops have been
diagnosed with cutaneous leishmaniasis since the start of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and soldiers serving in Afghanistan
have been infected with visceral leishmaniasis, a more serious
form of the disease that can cause organ damage and death. In
addition, all blood donations from military personnel in Iraq
and Afghanistan were stopped because of the potential
transmission of the parasite from infected donors to non-
infected recipients.
The committee believes that it is important to have a safe
and effective method of early diagnosis. The Army has had under
development a diagnostic skin test for leishmaniasis that is
designed to be inexpensive, easy use and ideally suited for
routine use in areas where limited medical services are
available. This test is an important component of the overall
Department of Defense program to develop effective Food and
Drug Administration (FDA)-approved diagnostic and treatment
products for leishmaniasis. The diagnostic test is in advanced
development and has been successfully tested in humans in Phase
I safety trials. The committee notes, however, that the program
has not been included in the budget request because of funding
limitations.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63807A to continue development of the leishmaniasis skin test.
Light utility vehicle
The budget request contained $64.8 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no
funding for the light utility vehicle.
The committee is aware the Army requires a low-cost, light
utility vehicle (LUV) that would provide soldiers with enhanced
mobility, lethality and survivability compared to the current
high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle and understands that
the design and development of a LUV demonstrator could be
accelerated due to previous research in LUV technology by the
National Automotive Center.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in PE 62601A to continue the design, development, and
delivery of a LUV demonstrator.
Lightweight patient monitor with defibrillator
The budget request contained $45.2 million in PE 63002A for
medical advanced technology development.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
3002A to continue development of advanced capabilities in a
compact, lightweight, full-featured patient monitor with
defibrillator that will enable military caregivers to provide
intensive care monitoring and treatment in locations and
situations that would be otherwise inhibited by the size and
weight of the current technology in the field.
M5 high performance fiber for personnel armor systems
The budget request contained $21.7 million in PE 62786A for
warfighter technology, but included no funding for M5 high
performance fiber.
The committee notes that M5 fiber, based on independent
evaluation, offers the possibility of a new generation of
lighter and more effective body and vehicle armor as well as
similar improvement in heat resistant clothing.
The committee recognizes the urgency to provide improved
personnel protection and recommends $26.7 million in PE 62786A,
an increase of $5.0 million to hasten development, evaluation
and small-scale field testing of M5 fiber based armor and other
applications.
Mast mounted common remote stabilized sensor system
The budget request contained $26.7 million in PE 63653A for
advanced tank armament systems to support the development of
the Family of Stryker vehicles, but included no funds to
complete the development of the Mast Mounted Common Remote
Stabilized Sensor System (CRS3).
The Stryker Brigade Combat Team mission requirement states
the need for a high performance mast mounted CRS3 on the
Stryker Reconnaissance Vehicle and the Stryker Fire Support
Vehicle. The committee is aware $2.1 million was appropriated
in the National Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law
107-248) for a mast mounted CRS3 technology demonstrator. The
committee understands the next phase of development is a fully
qualified and tested mast mounted CRS3 and notes additional
funding would accelerate development of the mast mounted CRS3
by two years.
The committee understands a mast mounted CRS3, when
fielded, increases soldier survivability, allows soldier to
operate the sensor package inside the armored vehicle without
degrading sensor performance, and allows soldiers to target
from a defilade position.
Therefore, the committee recommends $41.7 million in PE
63653A, an increase of $15.0 million for accelerated mast
mounted CRS3 development for the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
Medium tactical vehicle steering and suspension development
The budget request contained $1.9 million in PE 64604A for
the continued development of medium tactical truck technologies
and enhancements.
The committee is aware the United States Army Tank-
Automotive and Armaments Command initiated an advanced steering
and suspension modification program in fiscal year 2004 for its
medium truck fleet. The committee supports the continued
modernization of the Army's medium truck fleet through
advancements in suspension and steering and further notes these
modifications can provide improved mission mobility, increased
vehicle maneuverability in confined areas, and allow for
greater vehicle control over extreme terrains such as those
found in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in PE 64604A to continue the development, simulation,
testing, and validation of the advanced medium truck steering
and suspension program.
Miniature sensor development for small and tactical unmanned aerial
vehicles
The budget request contained $23.8 million in PE 62709A for
night vision technology, but included no funding for
miniaturized hyperspectral and coherent imaging sensors for
small and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
The committee notes the urgent need for better sensors for
small and tactical UAVs and recommends $29.8 million in PE
62709A, an increase of $6.0 million for miniaturized
hyperspectral and coherent imaging sensors for small and
tactical UAVs.
Missile recycling center capability
The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 63103A for
explosive demilitarization technology, but contained no funds
for the Missile Recycling Center capability at Letterkenny
Munitions Center (LEMC).
The committee notes that Congress appropriated funding for
the tactical missile reuse and demilitarization capability at
LEMC in fiscal year 2004. Fiscal year 2006 funding would
furnish the LEMC with the capability to reduce the usage of
open burn and detonation techniques procedures, as directed by
Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling,
and Federal Acquisition (Executive Order 13101), for disposing
of tactical missiles. The additional funding will add a new
module for processing warheads from the multiple launch rocket
system and will support demilitarization of larger tactical
missiles received from other U.S. military services.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million for Missile Recycling Center capability at LEMC.
Modeling and analysis of the response of structures
The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 61104A for
university and industry research centers, but included no
funding for modeling and analysis of the response of structures
(MARS).
The committee notes that MARS computer simulations will
provide accurate vulnerability assessments that can be used to
improve warfighter protection, enhance survivability, and
facilitate rapid repair of structures.
The committee recommends $83.0 million in PE 61104A, an
increase of $1.0 million for MARS.
Night vision advanced technology
The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 63710A for
night vision advanced technology initiatives, of which $0.5
million was included for the Soldier Mobility and Rifle
Targeting System (SMaRTS) demonstration program.
The committee recognizes SMaRTS technology provides
soldiers with an improved lightweight, low power, helmet
mounted thermal and visible sensor, with a helmet mounted
display and thermal weapon sight. SMaRTS significantly improves
the warfighter's fight-on-the-move capability while conducting
mobile military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) in many
different environmental conditions where night vision goggles
alone fail to provide the complete solution as required by the
warfighter. The committee expects SMaRTS technology to be a
critical combat enabler and expects it to improve soldier
survivability in MOUT operations in all environments.
The committee recommends $55.8 million in PE 63710A, an
increase of $4.0 million to continue system component
definition, modeling, and design of the SMaRTS demonstration
program.
Night vision enhanced vision goggle
The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 63710A for
night vision advanced technology, but included no funds to
accelerate development of night vision fusion technology.
The committee recognizes that night vision capability has
provided our armed forces a significant advantage over their
adversaries. The committee notes that while older technology
has become available to others, state-of-the-art in night
vision, pixel level digital fusion of light intensification and
infrared images offers a very significant advantage over
previous night vision devices. The committee understands that
this technology will provide vital survivability and
operational enhancements.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.2 million in PE
63710A to accelerate development and fielding of enhanced night
vision pixel level, digital fusion of light intensification and
infrared image technology.
Night vision system air dispensing capability
The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 63710A for
night vision systems, but included no funding for unattended
ground sensor air deployment from air foils or unmanned aerial
vehicles.
The committee believes that in the future it will be highly
advantageous to dispense unattended ground sensors from
unmanned aerial vehicles.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in PE 63710A for development and testing of unmanned
aerial sensor dispensing.
Non-emitting helicopter brownout situational awareness demonstration
The budget request included $23.5 million in PE 64201A for
aircraft avionics, but included no funds for a non-emitting
helicopter brownout situational awareness demonstration. The
committee is aware that helicopter accidents continue to occur
due to brownout conditions and operations over water. While a
variety of technologies exist to solve this problem, the
committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has not
yet demonstrated an effective and affordable solution using
non-emitting technologies. The committee believes that
affordable and relatively mature technologies exist to
demonstrate this capability.
Therefore, the committee has included an increase of $3.0
million in PE 64201A for a non-emitting helicopter brownout
situational awareness demonstration. The committee directs that
these funds be used for a competitive evaluation using a
helicopter platform. If the evaluation is successful in
demonstrating improved capabilities and affordable
technologies, the committee encourages the insertion of this
capability into existing programs to improve flight handling
qualities in degraded visual environments.
Patient status monitor
The budget request contained $45.2 million in PE 63002A for
medical advanced technology development.
The committee notes advances in patient status monitoring
technology that provide on-body sensing of physiological
conditions, such as heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature
via a series of wireless relays for patient monitoring and
detection of a critical or life threatening event. Potential
applications of the technology include the monitoring of a
deployed individual or groups of individuals who might be
subject to catastrophic physiological events, such as military
and public safety personnel, and those with acute
cardiovascular disease.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
63002A to accelerate the development and evaluation of
wireless-remote patient status monitoring technology.
Portable and mobile emergency broadband system
The budget request contained $45.3 million in PE 63008A for
electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funding
for the portable and mobile emergency broadband system.
The committee notes that the portable and mobile emergency
broadband system, based on emerging commercial technology, will
allow rapid establishment of emergency communications networks.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.1 million in PE
63008A to complete critical development of the portable and
mobile emergency broadband system.
Powdered metal compaction
The budget request contained $68.5 million in PE 78045A for
manufacturing science and technology.
The committee notes the production of high quality, low
cost net and near-net shaped parts for a variety of defense
products uses traditional compacted metal powder processes in a
75 year-old process that is costly and complex. In many cases
the resulting density and tensile strength of the finished
parts are not sufficient to allow them to be used in many
aerospace, ground vehicle, and weapons system applications.
The committee notes that the combustion driven compaction
(CDC) process in which an electrically-ignited, combustible gas
mixture is used to drive the press overcomes many of the
problems of the current compacted powder technology. The CDC
process technology is simple and controllable, capable of
providing compacted metal parts that are useable in defense
applications, and appears to have the potential for creating a
major step forward in defense manufacturing technology in terms
of performance and affordability.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
78045A for a powdered metal compaction initiative to continue
the development and implementation of combustion driven
compaction technology for defense applications.
Pseudofollicullitus Barbae
The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63807A for
medical systems advanced development, but included no funding
for the development of a treatment for pseudofollicullitus
barbae.
The committee recognizes the importance of the development
of a treatment for pseudofollicullitus barbae, particularly as
it affects military personnel deployability rates.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE
63807A for pseudofollicullitus barbae research.
Rugged textile electronic garments
The budget request contained $45.2 million in PE 63002A for
medical advanced technology development, but included no funds
for continuation of the development of rugged textile
electronic garments for combat casualty care.
The committee continues to note advances in sensor
technology, textile electronics, information management, and
medical science have increased the potential for remote
diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of a range of medical
conditions. Positive results from combat casualty care and
electronic textiles research suggest that major improvements
can be made in the survival of wounded soldiers through the use
of these technologies in an integrated system. Congress has
supported the development and assessment of the application of
advanced textile electronic garments to combat casualty care.
The committee notes that the plan for the third year of the
program emphasizes the integration of advanced sensor
technologies into apparel that will provide a ``wear and
forget'' physiological status monitoring capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE
63002A to complete the final year of the rugged textile
electronic garment program.
Smart responsive nano-composites
The budget request contained $67.2 million in PE 61103A for
University Research Initiatives, but included no funding for
smart responsive nano-composites.
The committee is aware that there is a multitude of design
possibilities for nano-structured, nature-simulating materials
capable of responding to outside stimuli.
The committee recommends $69.2 million in PE 61103A, an
increase of $2.0 million to develop a smart responsive nano-
structured material, which combines detection of toxins and
alarm-release with self-cleaning and self-repairing material.
Strategic materials and strategic manufacturing initiative
The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 62624A for
weapons and munitions technology, but included no funding for
the strategic materials strategic manufacturing initiative
(SM2i).
The committee notes that titanium is important for weight
reduction of weapons systems. The committee is aware that SM2i
will link the Army's efforts to establish a reliable low-cost
domestic source of titanium with advanced domestic
manufacturing capabilities. The committee recommends an
increase of $8.0 million in PE 62624A for SM2i.
Tactical wheeled vehicle product improvement program
The Army is preparing to make a significant capital
investment in its tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fleet as a
direct result of modularity and extreme usage rates from
ongoing operations in the global war on terrorism. The Army
requires the flexibility to rapidly evaluate and integrate
readily available technology into TWV platforms as part of its
recapitalization and modernization effort for TWVs. The
committee expects these technologies to have a real-time impact
and effect on existing TWVs by providing increased capability
in the areas of performance. The committee report (H. Rept.
108-491) accompanying the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375)
requires all Department of Defense manned ground systems must
be assessed for adequacy in survivability and suitability
against asymmetrical, unconventional threats. As such, the
committee expects at the minimum, the incorporation of lessons
learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom as a specific component of
the TWV Product Improvement Program (PIP).
The Army's TWV recapitalization and modernization strategy
will require proof-of-concept modifications and commercial-off-
the-shelf proven capabilities in the key performance areas of
force protection, survivability, reliability, distribution and
mission enhancements and safety. The committee realizes the
degree of complexity of integrating new technologies and
commercial modifications into specific TWV platforms. The
committee is also aware this process of ``spiraling''
technologies into current TWV platforms marks the first time
that this has occurred as the historical trend has been to
categorize the TWV fleet as a non-developmental item. The
committee disagrees with this historical non-developmental item
categorization of the TWV fleet and commends the Army and the
Program Executive Officer for Combat Support and Combat Service
Support for devising a modernization and recapitalization
strategy for the TWV fleet that includes readily available
technology platform insertions. The committee supports the
Army's effort and the committee believes a TWV PIP can augment
and accelerate the spiraling of these needed, readily available
technologies into specific TWV platforms.
Therefore, the committee recommends $50.0 million in fiscal
year 2006 for the TWV PIP. The committee expects this
additional funding will be prioritized and
distributedaccordingly across the families of light, medium and heavy
tactical wheeled vehicles and to also include the family of tactical
trailers. Given the noted complexity of the TWV recapitalization and
modernization strategy, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February
1, 2006, describing in detail the Army's plan for integrating these
product improvement modifications into the current TWV fleet. The
committee expects the report to provide specific cost estimates and
specific platform modifications.
Titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering research
The budget request contained $44.7 million in PE 62624A for
weapons and munitions technology, but included no funding for
titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering research
(TEMPER).
The committee is aware that the TEMPER initiative is
intended to enhance U.S. industrial capability for the
efficient production of inexpensive titanium for military
systems. The committee notes that titanium offers weight and
performance advantages and that the process must be developed
to produce titanium at a reasonable cost in order to realize
those advantages in future military systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
62624A for TEMPER.
Transparent armor
The budget request contained $48.3 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 $1.5
million in PE 63003A for lightweight armored window technology.
UH-60 maintenance improvement program
The budget request contained $409.1 million in PE 23744A,
aircraft modifications/product improvement programs, but
included no funds for a maintenance improvement program for the
UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.
The committee notes the benefits of streamlining
maintenance practices in order to reduce aircraft downtime for
scheduled maintenance and to expedite return of the weapon
system to the warfighter. The Nomad Expert Technician System
(NETS), along with commercially developed software, combines to
form the Nomad Aircraft Maintenance Improvement Program
(NAMIP). The NETS is a maintenance productivity tool composed
of a wireless, integrated, belt-mounted control module and a
heads-up display mounted on a standard type baseball cap. This
display allows maintenance personnel to view technical data and
procedures concerning maintenance tasks without leaving their
point of task. Secondly, commercially available software can
adapt existing UH-60 maintenance data to integrate with the
NETS displays. As a result, the NAMIP has the potential to
significantly increase output productivity and reduce aircraft
downtime for UH-60 maintenance facilities Army wide.
Therefore, the committee recommends $413.0 million in PE
23744A, an increase of $3.9 million for test and evaluation of
the UH-60 NAMIP at Corpus Christi Army Depot and the Army
National Guard Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot.
Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $18.0 billion for Navy
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $18.0 billion, a decrease of $15.9
million from the budget request.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced mine detection program
The budget request contained $56.4 million in PE 63640M for
the Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but
included no funding for the advanced mine detection program.
The committee is aware that the Marine Corps urgently needs
a backpack advanced mine detection capability with minimal
false alarm rates. The committee notes that the Office of Naval
Research has been working to develop an advanced mine detection
system based on quadrupole resonance technology that has the
potential to meet Marine Corps requirements.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63640M to complete development of a quadrupole resonance
technology advanced backpack mine detection system.
Affordable towed array construction
The budget request contained $95.5 million in PE 64503N for
submarine system equipment development, including $4.5 million
to continue the development of affordable towed array
technology.
The affordable towed array construction program employs
fiber optic thinline arrays to provide reliability improvements
by reducing system complexity, eliminating wet end electronics,
enhancing littoral capability and incorporating robust array
construction methods. The committee believes that accelerating
the development and fielding of fiber optic towed array
technology using improved construction methods and process
would provide increased performance, reliability and
operational capabilities at reduced costs and earlier
introduction into the fleet.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in PE 64503N to accelerate the development and
introduction into the fleet of fiber optic thinline arrays.
Affordable weapon system
The budget request contained $14.2 million in PE 63795N for
land attack technology advanced component development and
prototypes.
The affordable weapons system (AWS) program began as an
Office of Naval Research (ONR) advanced technology initiative
to demonstrate the ability to design, develop, and build a
capable and affordable precision guided weapon system at a cost
that would be an order of magnitude cheaper than comparable
weapons systems and in production would achieve a stable unit
production cost very early in the production cycle.
The committee notes that the ONR program has been
successful in all respects. In less than four years, the AWS
program demonstrated the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
components to construct a 400-600 mile range, subsonic (180-220
knot), ``loitering, 200 pound payload, precision strike missile
with global position system/inertial navigation system guidance
and control and a data link.'' The missile has both line-of-
sight and satellite data links for interaction with ground
stations and forward observers and is reprogrammable in flight.
In operational use the missile would be launched from CONEX-
type containers that hold between 6 and 20 missiles and could
be carried on land, sea, or air platforms. The initiative has
demonstrated that the COTS approach can reduce costs by an
order of magnitude from traditional cruise missiles. The
current missile cost in large scale production, exclusive of
warhead, is estimated to be approximately $65,000.
Based on the results of the AWS advanced technology
demonstration, the Department of Defense and the Navy
transitioned the AWS from the technology base to an accelerated
advanced component development and prototype program to
demonstrate the ability to produce the missile at the projected
cost, produce up to 100 missiles and launch and fire control
equipment for developmental and operational testing, and
support user evaluation of the AWS for potential use by the
fleet. The Navy is also assessing the operational requirement
and concepts of operation for the system and those other
activities that would be necessary to establish AWS as a
program of record. The current schedule includes completion of
an operational evaluation of the system during the third
quarter of fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million in PE
63795N to continue the development of the AWS, support
developmental and operational testing and fleet evaluation of
the system. Of the amount provided, up to $30.0 million may be
used to continue low rate initial production of the system. The
committee directs that funds to continue low rate initial
production of the system will not become available for
obligation until successful completion of the AWS operational
evaluation.
Air combat environment test and evaluation
The budget request contained $51.2 million in PE 64231N for
major test and evaluation investment.
The committee notes that in order to meet increasingly
complex asymmetric threats, U.S. armed forces are transforming
from a strategy based on threats to a strategy based on
capabilities, and that this transformation requires
sophisticated modeling, simulation, and analysis at research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and training range
facilities operated by the military departments. The Air Combat
Environment Test and Evaluation Facility (ACETEF) is a ground
test facility whose primary purpose is to test installed
aircraft systems in an integrated multi-spectral warfare
environment using state-of-the-art simulation and simulation
technology. The facility supports the systems development
process from early mission needs and requirements development
through operational testing and training. The robust and
flexible modeling and simulation architecture has made possible
other RDT&E and related capabilities, such as distributed or
co-located battlegroup mission rehearsal for naval and joint
forces.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
64231N to accelerate improvements in high-fidelity simulation
capabilities at the ACETEF.
Airborne reconnaissance systems
The budget request contained $27.9 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, to improve safety of UAV operations, the
committee recommends $32.9 million in PE 35206N, an increase of
$5.0 million for PCAR.
Aircraft carrier launch and recovery and support equipment
modernization
The budget request contained $33.0 million in PE 64512N for
shipboard aviation systems development, but included no funds
for development of the aircraft carrier launch and recovery
(ALRE) and support equipment (SE) modernization program.
The ALRE/SE modernization program would develop
modernization strategies for existing ALRE/SE systems to reduce
the human error and operating costs while improving safety and
reliability. The committee understands that state-of-the-art
ALRE/SE technologies and design tools are being developed for
the Department of the Navy's 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 $39.5 million in PE
64512N, an increase of $6.5 million, for ALRE/SE modernization
program. The committee expects that $2.0 million would be for
ALRE systems modernization; $2.5 million would be for
development of prognostic, health monitoring, and condition-
based maintenance systems; and $2.0 million would be for
upgrading ALRE/SE technical data packages.
Amorphous metal permanent magnet generator set
The budget request contained $22.2 million in PE 63513N for
shipboard systems advanced component development and
prototypes.
The committee understands that generator sets employing
amorphous metal permanent magnets have the potential to greatly
increase power output, while reducing the size and weight of
the generator set. Such generator technology also holds the
potential for reducing lifecycle costs by increasing fuel
efficiency and reducing logistics supports costs. Congress
provided $1.5 million in fiscal year 2005 for development of an
amorphous metal permanent generator.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63513N to continue the development and demonstration of an
amorphous metal permanent magnet generator set for potential
use on U.S. Navy combatants and other ships.
Aviation ship integration center
The budget request contained $167.8 million in PE 63512N
for carrier systems advanced technology development and
prototyping, but included no funds for the Aviation Ship
Integration Center.
The Aviation Ship Integration Center supports the
development and conceptualization of fully integrated advanced
technology designs for future aircraft carriers. The center
identifies, tests, and integrates transformational design
changes and products for aviation capable ships and component
systems, and permits the identification and resolution of
potential problems early in the development cycle, thereby
reducing overall engineering costs and facilitating the
introduction of transformational initiatives in the CVN-21
carrier.
The committee notes that additional funding is required to
expand and complete several key initiatives by the shipbuilder
and appropriate government sponsors:
(1) Identification of and experimentation with design
changes that can reduce cost or improve net centric
warfare capabilities;
(2) Integrate and test communications, command,
control, computers, and intelligence components to
ensure joint interoperability;
(3) Design flexible, modular compartments for
decision centers aboard ships.
(4) In coordination with the Navy's systems commands,
develop and implement leading edge modeling and
simulation capabilities that allow warfighters and
engineers to collaborate effectively on aircraft
carrier design issues; and
(5) Implement a technical framework for facilities,
networks, and simulations that will be compatible with
evolving Department of Defense initiatives such as the
joint distributed engineering plant and joint national
training capabilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
63512N for the Aviation Ship Integration Center.
Biomedical research imaging
The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for
medical development and demonstration, but included no funds
for biomedical research imaging.
The committee continues to note the progress being made in
the use of advanced imaging technology in biomedical research.
The committee believes that these findings have important
implications for advances in real-time medical diagnosis and
treatment for the armed forces and for the application of
advanced data fusion technologies in other areas.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
64771N to continue development of the applications of advanced
imaging technology in biomedical research.
Ceramic air deployed sensor
The budget request contained $6.3 million in PE 63216N for
aviation survivability, but included no funding for ceramic
air-deployed sensor.
The committee recognizes the need to develop low-cost air
deployable sensors and understands that ceramic composites may
offer potential to reduce sensor costs.
Therefore, the committee recommends $8.8 million in PE
63216N, an increase of $2.5 million for ceramic air deployed
sensor.
CH-53X heavy lift replacement
The budget request included $272.0 million in PE 65212N and
$2.5 million in PE 64212N for the CH-53X heavy lift replacement
(HLR) program. The budget request also included $6.0 million in
PE 63003A for the Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) program.
As noted elsewhere in this report (sec. 219), the JHL
program as currently structured and funded is a joint program
in name only. The committee believes that Navy and Marine Corps
future missions and required capabilities are not that
different and the Secretary of Defense must ensure the JHL
program is structured to meet the needs of the Army and Marine
Corps.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in PE 65212N
for HLR, a reduction of $272.0 million; $12.5 million in PE
64212N, an increase of $10.0 million for JHL; and $16.0 million
in PE 63003A, an increase of $10.0 million for JHL.
Common submarine radio room
The budget request contained $95.5 million in PE 64503N for
submarine system equipment development and $44.1 million in PE
11224N for the SSBN security technology program.
The committee notes that the radio room on many of today's
ships uses outdated, and in some cases, obsolete technologies.
As a result, the systems that support ship communications in
the radio room are labor intensive, require heavy and costly
maintenance, suffer from operator overload and require large
numbers of highly skilled operators. The Navy developed the
Common Submarine Radio Room (CSRR) in the Virginia Class
submarine program and plans to standardize radio rooms across
all submarine classes using the CSRR model. CSRR will reduce
the cost, training, and maintenance in submarine radio rooms;
and, through increased use of automation, will permit the
reduction of personnel required to stand watch in the radio
room. In the future, the CSRR concept may be extended to the
surface fleet.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE
64503N and an increase of $2.7 million in PE 11224N for the
Navy's unfunded requirement for the CSRR.
Consolidated undersea situational awareness
The budget request contained $60.6 million in PE 63235N for
common picture advanced technology development, but included no
funds to continue development of the consolidated undersea
situational awareness system (CUSAS).
The committee notes that CUSAS is a decision-support system
would provide knowledge superiority to undersea warfare (USW)
forces through the use of advanced, interactive, decision
support software. Developed initially under the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, CUSAS offers significant
improvements in situational awareness for fleet operators
through the use of high fidelity, two- and three-dimensional
presentations, augmented with real-time, intelligent agent-
based, tactical recommendations.
The committee notes the progress in the development of
CUSAS. Over the past year, CUSAS tactical interfaces with
existing submarine combat systems, and a preliminary collision
avoidance capability have been developed and evaluated. The
system has demonstrated the capability to interface with,
process, and display all sources of sensor and intelligence
data onboard a U.S. submarine. The committee believes that
successful development of the CUSAS decision support system
will provide a capability that would significantly assist
submarine commanders to make rapid and informed decisions in
critical combat operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
63235N to continue development of CUSAS.
Cooperative engagement capability
The conference report (H. Rept. 105-736) accompanying the
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) directed the Secretary of the
Navy to report to the congressional defense committees, at
least quarterly, on cooperative engagement capability and
combat direction system interoperability problems and planned
solutions.
The committee notes that the Navy has complied with this
direction and has described a broad scope of actions taken to
improve interoperability between the cooperative engagement
capability and surface ship combat direction systems. The
Navy's reports reflect substantial success in addressing the
issues that were of concern to the conferees in 1998, and
moreover, the establishment of long-range organizational
procedures and a system of reliable evaluations and reviews to
ensure the readiness of deploying strike groups. Accordingly,
the committee agrees to terminate the quarterly reporting
requirement effective October 1, 2005.
Digital shipboard voice communications
The committee applauds the Navy's efforts to explore the
transition of all shipboard communications to a digital format.
The committee understands that the use of this technology will
save significant space and weight aboard the Navy's combat
vessels by converging voice, video, and data traffic into a
common network infrastructure. Even so, the committee
recognizes that before the Navy selects all digital and Voice
over internet protocol (VoIP) communications systems as the
fleet standard, issues in quality of service and bandwidth
consumption must be addressed. The committee also understands
that the Department of Defense and the Navy are reluctant to
move to VoIP before a universally recognized commercial
standard technical solution is adopted. While the committee
understands this reluctance, the committee believes that the
lack of a commercial standard should not impede the adoption of
promising VoIP systems, if the overall benefit of digital
shipboard communications is demonstrated. To that end, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to explore options to
partner with U.S. industry to develop a universally recognized
VoIP technical standard.
Hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier
The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for
medical system development and demonstration, but included no
funds specifically to continue the development of hemoglobin-
based oxygen carrier technology.
The committee notes that there is currently no effective
method of providing front-line resuscitative treatment (i.e.
immediate oxygen-carrying support) for acute blood loss to
wounded soldiers on the battlefield and civilian trauma victims
in an out-of-hospital setting. The single major cause of death
in potentially salvageable battlefield casualties is hemorrhage
and blood loss, and early intervention to treat hemorrhage
provides the greatest opportunity for reducing mortality and
morbidity. Although blood transfusion is not practical in far
forward or out-of-hospital settings, hemoglobin-based oxygen
carriers have the characteristics of stability at room
temperature that overcome many of the medical and logistical
problems associated with red blood cell transfusion.
In fiscal year 2002 Congress initiated a program for
evaluation of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers for the
treatment of trauma casualties. Based on the progress in the
program the U.S. Naval Medical Research Center is directing a
clinical development and trials program to evaluate the safety
and efficacy of a particular hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier.
The program is designed to serve as the basis for approval by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and subsequent licensing
of the product for military and civilian trauma applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
64771N to continue the program for development and clinical
trials of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers for treatment of
trauma casualties.
High temperature superconducting AC synchronous ship propulsion motor
The budget request contained $71.5 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology development, including
$23.8 million for development of surface ship and submarine
hull, mechanical and electrical advanced technology and to
continue development of a 36.5 megawatt class, high temperature
superconducting alternating current (AC) synchronous motor.
The committee notes that development of component
technologies for the all electric warship is one of the major
goals of the Navy's science and technology program. To this end
the Navy has pursued the development of several different
technologies for ship main propulsion electric motors,
including permanent magnet motors, high temperature
superconducting AC synchronous motor technology, and low
temperature superconducting direct current homopolar motor
technology. The committee notes that permanent magnet motor
technology is more mature and represents a potential near-term
candidate for a ship main propulsion motor. However, the
committee also notes that superconducting motor technology
presents a number of advantages with respect to size and power
density that, if realized, would make that technology
potentially advantageous for certain applications.
In fiscal year 2003, the Navy awarded a contract for
development and demonstration of high temperature,
superconducting AC synchronous motor technology in a 36.5
megawatt propulsion motor and drive system that would be
designed to be compatible with Navy electric warship concepts
and performance requirements, and would be available to begin
Navy evaluation in fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63123N to continue development and demonstration of the high
temperature superconducting AC synchronous motor.
Joint integrated systems technology
The budget request contained $542.0 million in PE 33109N
for satellite communications (SATCOM). The Joint integrated
satellite communications (JIST-NET) is a web-based SATCOM
planning and management technology that utilizes the Department
of Defense's existing internet protocol router to expand the
flexibility and efficiency of military SATCOM across a broad
spectrum of radio frequencies. The committee believes that
developmental systems like JIST-NET, based on common standards
are critical to increased SATCOM efficiency and maximizing the
utilization of available spectrum resources across legacy and
follow-on SATCOM.
The committee recommends $551.2 million in PE 33109N, an
increase of $9.2 million to continue the JIST-NET program for
development of a uniform web-based architecture for SATCOM
mission planning and resource allocation.
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. The program's near-term efforts
address integration issues resulting from the rapid fielding of
urgently needed weapons and equipment to infantry squads
currently operating in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the
program's long term objective strategy provides marine infantry
rifle squads with fully integrated future equipment systems.
The committee understands the importance and the heightened
capabilities fully integrated equipment systems bring to
marines operating in combat theaters of operations. The
committee is aware that certain non-integrated equipment
components can interfere with individual marines' ability to
conduct their missions effectively, causing marines to develop
ad hoc solutions to in effect generate an integrated equipment
solution. The committee understands MERS is designed to prevent
these problems from occurring by providing an integrated
solution set to the marine rifle squad before deployment to a
combat zone.
Therefore, the committee recommends $2.5 million in PE
63635A to continue the phase development strategy of the MERS
program.
Marine mammal research program
The budget request contained $82.9 million in PE 62236N for
warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds
for continuation of the marine mammal research program.
The committee notes continuing public concern about the
effect of sound on the behavior and well-being of marine
mammals and continues to support research in these areas. The
marine mammal research program investigates the effects of
noise on dolphin hearing and dolphin biosonar capabilities,
joint visual and acoustic surveys of the behavior of humpback
whales, and also supports research in bioacoustical
oceanography.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE
62236N to continue the program for research in marine mammal
behavior, the effects of sound on marine mammals, and
bioacoustical oceanography.
Metrology
The budget request contained $84.3 million in PE 64215N for
standards development, including $1.4 million for calibration
standards development. The budget request supports Navy lead
service responsibilities in the Department of Defense (DOD)
Joint Services metrology research and development program.
The DOD's metrology research and development program
develops new measurement standards and capabilities to support
the development, test, evaluation, and maintenance of emerging
military systems. The committee notes that continued shortfalls
in the metrology budgets of all the military departments have
led to the erosion of critical calibration standards
development and measurement services to the detriment of the
development and support of new weapons systems. Recent efforts
to improve research and development funding are helping, but a
backlog of projects exists for fiscal year 2005 and is expected
to continue to climb higher in fiscal year 2006 without outside
support. The committee believes, however, initiation of the
most critical unfunded projects in fiscal year 2006,
particularly those in the chemical/biological and improvised
explosive device detection areas, would significantly benefit
the Department and the readiness of U.S. forces.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $91.1 million in PE
64215N, an increase of $6.8 million for calibration standards
development.
Multi-wavelength surface scanning biologics sensor
The budget request contained $51.2 million in PE 64231N for
development and demonstration of Navy tactical command systems.
The committee notes on-going research in the use of multi-
wavelength excitation spectral technology for the detection and
identification of biologic agents that are not discernible with
conventional sensors. The current program under the advanced
sensor applications program (ASAP), PE 63714D, which is being
completed with fiscal year 2005 funding, has successfully
developed the capability to detect bio-spores on contaminated
surfaces using two-dimensional fluorescence that spectrally
resolves the target in both excitation and emission dimensions.
The committee notes the Navy's intention to capitalize on the
success of the ASAP program and adapt the sensor technology to
develop a networked capability for detection of biological
agent plumes, which would be created by distribution of a
biological agent as an aerosol. The committee further notes
that the new work will provide a critical sensor input to the
Naval Simulation System and will also enhance ongoing joint
program work in predictive plume modeling.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
64231N to continue the development and demonstration of two-
dimensional fluorescence spectral sensing technology for real-
time detection and identification of aerosolized pathogens.
Polyimide macro electromechanical systems
The budget request contained $75.1 million for RF Systems
Advanced Technology in PE 63271N, but included no funds for
polyimide macro electromechanical systems (PMEMS).
Cost and weight considerations are driving reduced
performance communications arrays on future Navy shipbuilding
programs. The committee believes this is unacceptable in light
of new architectural and advanced manufacturing techniques that
will reduce the cost and weight of phased array antennas.
By using advanced flexible materials and packaging, PMEMS
phase shifting and power/signal distribution offers a
technology path at significantly reduced cost over conventional
module based phased array designs. The committee believes that
this ``disruptive'' technology will dramatically reduce the
cost of phased arrays for multiple applications and frequency
bands. A PMEMS Hybrid 2-D scanned Phased Array for an extremely
high frequency (EHF) satellite communication antenna costs one
tenth that of a Conventional 2-D scanned array--about $88.0
million in savings per ship-set. Inherently lighter, the PMEMS
Hybrid array promises additional weight savings when
significantly reduced power and cooling requirements are
factored. In February 2005, the PMEMS technology was evaluated
favorably by the Applied Physics Lab and the Office of Naval
Research. In March, the committee learned that the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition plans to initiate a PMEMS effort in fiscal year
2005 to demonstrate the technology in a shipboard environment
with the goal of having it available for incorporation into the
Navy's shipbuilding program sooner, rather than later. The
committee agrees with this effort and an expedited schedule.
Accordingly, the committee recommends authorization of
$82.5 million in PE 63271N, an increase of $7.4 million to
continue the PMEMS EHF Transmit and Receive sub-array antenna
demonstration program.
``Quik Clot'' hemostatic agent
The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for
medical development, but included no funds for the Quick Clot
hemostatic agent.
The committee notes the effectiveness of the Quik Clot
hemostatic agent in its ability when applied to a battlefield
wound to rapidly cause the bleeding wound to clot and stop
further loss of blood. The committee is aware that when the
agent is applied to a wound, an exothermic reaction takes
place, which is uncomfortable to the patient and can burn the
damaged tissue. The committee understands that although Quik
Clot is effective on surface wounds, it has not been developed
or approved for internal use.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 million in PE
64771N for development of a new generation of Quik Clot, that
will make the agent suitable for internal use and will mitigate
its undesirable thermal characteristics.
Remote ocean surveillance system
The budget request contained $75.1 million in PE 63271N for
radio frequency systems advanced technology development.
The committee notes continued progress in the development
of high contrast, high resolution multi-spectral sensors and
image processing technology that indicate potential
capabilities for detection of objects in the ocean in real-
time, at various depths, and with relatively high search rates.
Realization and employment of these technologies in littoral
areas, estuaries, and ports would provide the capability for a
remote ocean surveillance system to provide real-time
capabilities for mine detection and avoidance, force
protection, and identification and dissemination of information
on the surface and sub-surface threat to ports and harbors.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63271N to continue the proof-of-concept development and
demonstration of multi-spectral sensor and image processing
technology for a remote ocean surveillance system.
Retro-reflecting optical communications for special operations
The budget request contained $94.1 million in PE 62114N for
power projection applied research.
The committee notes that the Naval Research Laboratory
(NRL) has conducted extensive research in the use of modulated
retro-reflectors, which could eliminate the need for an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to carry a laser for downlink
communications Under the current program, NRL has demonstrated
high power, high efficiency compact lasers and miniature retro-
reflectometers, which can modulate a laser signal with data
from the air vehicle as that signal is reflected back to the
source, and laser interrogators to transmit and receive the
signal. NRL has also demonstrated the high-speed modulation
required for downloading data from new high data rate sensors,
the type that might be carried on UAVs, as well as
demonstrating the use of the technology in ship-to-shore
communications. The committee understands that the next step in
the program is the development of a miniaturized, gimbaled
laser interrogator for airborne platforms.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
62114N to continue the development of retro-reflecting optical
communications for special operations applications.
Spectral beam combining fiber lasers
The budget request contained $75.1 million in PE 63271N for
radio frequency systems advanced technology development.
The committee notes that high power lasers based on fiber
laser technology might be capable of providing U.S. armed
forces the same operational advantages as solid-state lasers,
but could offer potential breakthroughs in reduced size,
weight, complexity, and cooling requirements. The committee is
informed that recently demonstrated technology for spectral
beam combining fiber lasers, in which the outputs of a number
of low power fiber optic lasers are combined into a single,
high quality laser beam, could permit the construction of high
power lasers from an array of lower power fiber laser elements
at a significantly lower cost than conventional high power
lasers.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
63271N for advanced development and evaluation of the
technology for spectral beam combining fiber lasers.
Superconducting direct current homopolar motor
The budget request contained $71.5 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology development, including
$23.8 million for advanced development of surface ship and
submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical systems, but did not
include any funds to continue development and demonstration of
an advanced main propulsion 36.5 megawatt prototype
superconducting direct current (DC) homopolar motor.
The development of component technologies for the all-
electric warship is one of the major goals of the Navy's
science and technology program. To this end the Navy has
pursued the development of several different technologies for
ship main propulsion electric motors. The committee notes that
superconducting motor technology presents a number of
advantages with respect to size and power density that make
that technology potentially advantageous for certain
applications. The committee also notes that low temperature
superconducting DC homopolar motor technology has the potential
technical advantages of being smaller, lighter, and quieter
than alternating current (AC) electric motors, and, if
realized, would make the superconducting DC homopolar motor a
potentially more suitable alternative for use in submarines or
in other ship applications where these attributes are desired.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63123N to continue the program for development of a prototype
36.5 megawatt superconducting DC homopolar motor for ship main
propulsion.
Surface warfare communications systems
The committee is concerned that the Navy may be procuring
surface ship internal secure voice communications equipment
that does not fully integrate the ship's internal and external
communications systems, critically limiting interoperability
with other ships and allied forces. This situation may require
sailors to retransmit voice communications that could be
seamlessly received, resulting in delay and possible inaccurate
data retransmission. Such delay in combat could cost lives and
endanger the ship, an unacceptable circumstance when better
technology is readily available. The committee firmly believes
that any secure voice system should be fully competed and be
compliant with the Navy's network centric ForceNet concept. The
committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to correct this
situation as soon as possible by directing the commander of the
Naval Sea Systems Command to consider communications
integration and interoperability as a requirement in the
procurement of secure voice communications equipment for the
fleet.
Synthetic aperture sonar commonality
The Navy is developing synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) for
application in undersea warfare against mines and against
submarines. Currently, different processors are in development
for different systems, and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency has expressed interest in one variant of the
candidate processors. The committee believes that the
processors for these systems should be standardized to the
maximum possible extent. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Navy to assess the feasibility of establishing commonality
in SAS processors and the ability to achieve a best option or
blend of the best capabilities which could then be defined as
the common SAS processor. The Secretary shall submit a report
of the results of the assessment to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2006.
Tactical E-field buoy development
The budget request contained $7.0 million in PE 63254N for
advanced component development and prototypes for anti-
submarine warfare systems, including the continued development
and evaluation of nonlinear dynamics and stochastic resonance
(NDSR) for acoustic, magnetic, and other anti-submarine warfare
sensor and signal processing applications.
The committee notes the continuing progress in the
application of nonlinear dynamics science and technology to
non-acoustic shallow water anti-submarine warfare and the
potential for greatly improving anti-submarine warfare systems
performance as a result of significantly increased
electromagnetic detection ranges, enhanced sonar target
discrimination, and improved signal processing. One result of
this program has been the establishment of the effectiveness of
E-field sensors using state-of-the-art sensor technology
coupled with nonlinear signal processing.
The committee believes that an air-launched tactical E-
field buoy patterned after the Air Deployed Active Receiver
sonobuoy has great potential for real-time target detection and
classification.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
63254N to continue the program for accelerated component and
prototype design, development, and testing of a tactical E-
field buoy for littoral anti-submarine warfare.
Use of out of service torpedo components for unmanned undersea vehicle
systems
The committee is aware that the Navy has explored the
possibility of using out of service torpedo components as major
elements of new Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs), including
components of the Mark 46 and Mark 50 torpedoes. UUV systems
must operate in the harsh undersea environment, presenting
several complex engineering challenges. The committee supports
the approach of using proven, pre-engineered systems and
components in UUV programs. Another out of service torpedo
system, the Mark 44, may also hold potential for use in UUV
systems. Use of the Mark 44 torpedo body and electrical
propulsion system, combined with modern low cost guidance units
and sensors could provide a quick, near term demonstration
capability at low cost. The committee directs the Navy to
evaluate use of the Mark 44 as a low cost UUV demonstration
capability, and to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees on its analysis and findings by February 1, 2006.
Virtual at-sea training initiative
The budget request contained $68.5 million in PE 63236N for
warfighter sustainment advanced technology development.
The committee recognizes the benefits of the Department of
the Navy's program to develop a technological solution to
maintain fleet readiness in the area of live fire targeting and
ordnance delivery. The Office of Naval Research's Virtual-at-
Sea-Training (VAST) initiative is an encouraging technology
solution, which uses the application of modeling and simulation
for simulation-based training, experimentation, mission
planning and rehearsal, and system analysis and acquisition.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63236N for continued development of the VAST initiative.
Warfare protection advanced technology
The budget request contained $16.1 million in PE 63729N for
warfare protection advanced technology, but included no funding
for the Naval Special Warfare Performance and Injury Program.
This program shows promise in developing an injury prevention
model that will permit Navy special operating forces personnel
to maintain their required peak physical conditioning while
mitigating the risk of musculoskeletal injury.
The committee recommends $18.7 million in PE 63729N, an
increase of $2.6 million for Naval Special Warfare Performance
and Injury Prevention Program.
Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $22.6 billion for Air Force
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $22.4 billion, a decrease of
$204.1 million from the budget request.
Items of Special Interest
Active feedback flow control technology
The budget request contained $96.7 million in PE 62201F for
aerospace vehicle technologies, but included no funds for
advancement of intelligent aerospace systems (AIAS).
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. AFFC tools are
highly relevant for a broad spectrum of designs and development
such as on-board intelligence for maneuvering missiles/
projectiles and on-board intelligence for unmanned air
vehicles/micro-unmanned air vehicles utilizing neurobiological
inspired computational processes.
Therefore, the committee recommends $99.7 million in PE
62201F, an increase of $3.0 million for AIAS in the development
of AFFC.
Advanced engine starter/generator system prototype
The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 62203F,
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 in PE 62203F for development of an advanced engine
starter/generator system.
Advanced spacecraft technology
The budget request contained $60.9 million in PE 63401F for
advanced spacecraft technology, but contained no funds for the
intelligent free space optical communications node, precision
navigation and position-intelligent networking technology
(PINPOINT), satellite simulation toolkit (SST), or Streaker
small launch vehicle (SLV).
The committee is concerned about the developmental risk of
the transformational communications architecture, and notes
that any laser-based satellite communications system will also
require a radio-frequency (RF) capability. The committee
believes additional risk-mitigation development is warranted
for RF and laser-capable routers and low-cost adaptive
switching.
The committee notes that as satellite technology advances,
there is a greater requirement for satellites to more
accurately determine their position and attitude in absolute
terms. Such accuracy will be necessary for advances in
satellite flying formation and arrays of small satellitesthat
will work cooperatively to perform mission requirements. PINPOINT fuses
global positioning satellite transmissions and wideband ranging with a
network communication system for precise satellite navigation.
The committee recognizes SST provides value to the
acquisition and development of space systems via coherent
systems engineering and virtual prototyping.
The committee notes that the Streaker SLV has the potential
to provide affordable responsive launch for small satellites.
The committee recommends $72.9 million in PE 63401F, an
increase of $12.0 million as follows: $4.0 million to develop
an intelligent free space optical communications node, $4.0
million to develop PINPOINT, $3.0 million for SST, and $1.0
million for the Streaker SLV.
Aerospace propulsion
The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 62203F
for aerospace propulsion, but contained no funds for the
Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center.
The committee notes funding for the center will upgrade
modeling and simulation tools necessary to produce the vehicle
and propulsion technology efforts for future space and missile
programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62203F, for the Advanced Propulsion Vehicle Propulsion Center.
Aerospace propulsion and power technology
The budget request contained $77.3 million in PE 63216F for
aerospace propulsion and power technology, but contained no
funds for solid boost power technology.
The committee believes continued investment in solid boost
power technology is important to future propulsion systems.
The committee recommends $79.3 million for PE 63216F, an
increase of $2.0 million for solid boost power technology.
Affordable lightweight power supply development
The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 62203F
for applied research in aerospace propulsion, including $30.1
million for aerospace power technology.
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 $2.5 million in PE
62203F for applied research in lightweight proton exchange
membrane fuel cells.
Applied research in computing enterprise services program
The budget request contained $3.5 million in PE 33150F for
development of global command and control systems, but included
no funds for the applied research in computing enterprise
services (ARCES) program.
The committee notes the ARCES program leverages existing
systems using data fusion techniques to create new warfighting
capabilities and to create network-aware software systems that
optimize communication bandwidth. For fiscal year 2005, the
committee understands that the ARCES program is researching
solutions related to encoding techniques, dynamic information
sharing between warfighters, and information security; and
notes that the Congress appropriated an increase of $1.8
million for this purpose. For fiscal year 2006, the committee
understands that the ARCES research program would improve
intelligence gathering and sharing, reduce the total cost of
military equipment ownership, lower the cost of developing
future command and control systems, and extend the life cycle
of existing legacy command and control systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends $4.5 million in PE
33150F, an increase of $1.0 million to continue the ARCES
program.
Assured access to space
The committee believes that national security demands
success in achieving assured access to space. The committee is
interested in understanding all options for achieving assured
access to space. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense in conjunction with the Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to evaluate and
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 28, 2006, on the viability of a shuttle-derived system
or any other launch system alternative that may provide
increased confidence in achieving assured access to space. The
evaluation should consider at a minimum industrial base issues,
mission type, launch rate, reliability, infrastructure
investment, and total cost.
B-2 development
The budget request contained $285.2 million in PE 64240F
for B-2 systems development, but included no funds to upgrade
system processors. The B-2 is the Department of Defense's most
advanced long-range strike aircraft, capable of global force
projection in a highly defended target environment.
The committee understands that the B-2's existing on-board
processing and memory capacity is inadequate to accommodate
future upgrades, and believes that they should be improved to
accommodate the following future upgrades: extremely high
frequency satellite communications; improved target
acquisition; precision and moving target engagement; pre- and
post-strike assessment; global air traffic management; and
other intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance
improvements.
Therefore, the committee recommends $305.2 million for B-2
systems development, an increase of $20.0 million to upgrade
system processors, and encourages the Department of the Air
Force to complete funding for this upgrade in its Future Years
Defense Program.
Ballistic missile technology
The budget request contained no funds for PE 63311F for
ballistic missile technology. This program element has
traditionally provided funding for developing, integrating, and
demonstrating advanced guidance, navigation, and control
technologies for ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles, and
next generation strategic systems. This program element has
also traditionally funded upgrades for range safety
instrumentation. The committee notes that this program element
was funded at $11.6 million in fiscal year 2005 and believes
that such efforts should be continued.
The committee recommends $10.0 million for PE 63311F, an
increase of $10.0 million, of which $6.0 million is for
guidance system development and $4.0 million is for range
safety upgrades.
Biostatic protective clothing
The budget request contained $10.2 million in PE 64617F for
agile combat support but included no funds for the 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 further understands 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 $14.0 million in PE
64617F, an increase of $3.8 million for biostatic protective
clothing.
C-130 airlift squadrons
The budget request contained $233.0 million in PE 41115F
for C-130 development programs, but included no funds for the
real-time measurement weight and balance system or for
development of the automated inspection, repair, corrosion and
aircraft tracking (AIRCAT) system.
The committee understands that current C-130 weight and
balance calculations are based on historical survey data,
rather than on actual weights flown for each mission. Further,
the committee notes that miscalculated weights were a likely
factor in a recent C-130 aircraft accident and in a recent
commercial passenger-carrying aircraft accident. The committee
understands that a real-time measurement weight and balance
system could be developed that would improve aircraft safety by
measuring the actual aircraft weight and center of gravity of a
C-130 aircraft, thereby improving safety and cost savings. In
fiscal year 2005, the committee recommended an increase of $3.0
million and notes that $2.0 million was appropriated for this
system. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of
$5.0 million to qualify a real-time weight and balance system
on the C-130 aircraft.
The AIRCAT system would develop 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. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this
purpose.
The committee recommends $243.0 million in PE 41115F, a
total increase of $10.0 million.
Commercial communications bandwidth
The committee recognizes the important contribution
commercial satellite communications systems provide to military
operations. The need for commercial bandwidth to supplement
military systems will remain a requirement into the future. As
a result, the committee believes a long-term commitment to the
appropriate use of commercial satellite communications capacity
is in the U.S. government's best interest. The committee
believes a multi-year procurement strategy with the use of
annual contract options would provide sufficient commitment to
industry and provide the government ample flexibility to
terminate work as necessary. The committee recommends use of
this alternative to procure commercial bandwidth to support
military operations for those cases where it is the most
efficient and effective procurement method.
Cost analysis for space acquisitions
The committee is alarmed by the number of space acquisition
programs experiencing unexpected cost growth over the past
decade. Virtually every major space acquisition program has
experienced or sits dangerously close to a Nunn-McCurdy breach.
The committee believes the Air Force may have prevented this
cost growth if they had incorporated quality independent cost
analysis.
The committee is troubled about the Department of the Air
Force's ability to provide objective, credible, and competent
cost estimates for its space acquisition process and has
therefore asked the Government Accountability Office to assess
the Department's cost analysis capability. The committee is
concerned that this is representative of the general state of
Department of Defense acquisition policy, acquisition
management, the defense industrial base and related matters.
The committee notes the Department of the Air Force has
neither a formal training program nor a career development
program for its cost analysts, and a minimal number of cost
analysts work in the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC)
program offices. The role of the financial management cost
estimation organization at SMC has declined. At a strategic
level, the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency has insufficient
resources--funding, personnel, and data--to develop and sustain
a robust cost analysis capability that will meet the demands of
future Air Force space acquisition. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to take the steps necessary to
address the deficiencies in the area of cost analysis.
Counter space systems
The budget request contained $24.7 million in PE 64421F for
counter space systems, but contained no funds for space control
test capabilities.
The committee recognizes the proposed utility that space
control test capabilities could have for command and control,
modeling and simulation, and testing of space control systems.
However, the committee is concerned that this system is
currently designed for one specific space control program with
a questionable future. The committee believes not enough
planning has been performed on how this system could
incorporate the space control systems currently in development.
The committee recommends $26.7 million in PE 64421F for
counter space systems, an increase of $2.0 million for space
control test capabilities, and directs that these additional
fundsbe used to explore incorporating the capabilities of the
Rapid Attack and Identification Detection and Reporting System and the
Counter Communication System.
Defense research science
The budget request contained $223.9 million in PE 61102F
for defense research science, but contained no funds for the
Space Education Consortium at the Network Information and Space
Security Center (NISSC).
The committee believes strongly in the development of our
nation's space professionals and that towards this purpose, the
partnership between academia, industry, and the government must
continue to evolve. The committee recognizes that a key
component of this partnership is the Space Education Consortium
at the NISSC.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE
61102F, for the establishment of the Space Education Consortium
at the NISSC.
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. Furthermore, the committee notes
that Congress appropriated an increase of $5.6 million in
fiscal year 2005 for this purpose.
The committee recommends $3.2 million in PE 64740F, an
increase of $3.0 million for continuation of the DMIT program.
Engineering tool improvement program
The budget request contained $107.5 million in PE 62203F,
aerospace propulsion, but included no funds for the engineering
tool improvement program (ETIP).
The committee notes Congress has appropriated funding for
the ETIP since fiscal year 2003. The ETIP improves upon
existing modeling and simulation tools as well as supports the
development of new modeling and simulation tools. These
modeling and simulation tools address spacecraft component
interactions such as solid rocket motor heat transfer,
insulation performance, plume dispersion and liquid rocket
engine power balance. The ETIP will be used to develop the
integrated reusable launch vehicle analysis tool that
determines weight, size and performance of future two-stage-to-
orbit vehicle concepts. The ETIP directly supports efforts
toward land based strategic deterrents and operationally
responsive spacelift.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5
million in PE 62203F for the ETIP.
F-16 block 30 AN/APG-68(V)10 radar upgrade
The budget request contained $155.7 million in PE 27133F
for development of new capabilities for the F-16 series
aircraft, of which $47.6 million would be for development of
the AN/APG-68(V)10 radar for block 50 F-16 aircraft, but
included no funds for the development of the AN/APG-68(V)10
radar for integration into the Air Force Reserve Command's
(AFRC) block 30 F-16 aircraft.
The AN/APG-68(V)10 radar upgrade program would provide
improved performance and savings compared to the block 30 F-
16's existing AN/APG-68(V)5 radar. The committee understands
that the AN/APG-68(V)10's increased reliability features
combined with newer, more available digital parts will
significantly decrease annual operations and support costs.
Additionally, the committee understands that the AN/APG-68(V)10
will provide the block 30 F-16 with high-resolution synthetic
aperture radar maps that would allow the employment of
precision-guided munitions in all-weather conditions.
To save annual operating costs and to provide improved
radar capabilities, the committee recommends $163.7 million in
PE 27133F, an increase of $8.0 million for the development and
integration of the AN/APG-68(V)10 radar into the AFRC's block
30 F-16 aircraft.
Fibrous three dimensional composites for conformal load-bearing antenna
structures
The budget request contained $25.1 million in PE 63211F,
aerospace technology development and demonstration, but
included no funds for fibrous three-dimensional composites for
conformal load-bearing antenna structures (CLAS).
The committee notes that three-dimensional fibrous woven
composite structures are a key enabling technology to the
incorporation of CLAS on future weapons systems sensor
antennas. Three-dimensional fibrous woven composite structures
incorporate unitized structural design methodologies which show
the potential to reduce cost, part count, joint stress
concentrations, manufacturing time and weight. CLAS has the
potential to provide future weapons systems used for fighter
interdiction, cruise missile detection, detection and tracking
of moving ground targets under trees, missile boost phase
intercept support, and air traffic control for unmanned aerial
vehicles with more capable sensor antennas.
Therefore, the committee recommends $29.1 million for PE
63211F, an increase of $4.0 million for three-dimensional
fibrous woven composite structures for CLAS.
Fixed-installation x-ray detection system
The budget request contained $21.9 million in PE 63287F,
physical security equipment, but included no funds for
development of a fixed-installation x-ray detection system.
The committee notes the increasing requirement of force
protection measures against all acts of future terrorism for
worldwide Department of Defense personnel and installations.
The committee supports advanced technological development of a
fixed-installation, high energy transmission, commercial x-ray
system that operates in excess of three mega-electron volts and
combines Compton scattering technology with integrated
radiological threat detection. This technology could result in
a more effective and efficient method of detecting devices
containing explosives and weapons of mass destruction.
Furthermore, this system has the potential to increase
expedited throughput at installation entry points while
simultaneously decreasing system manpower support requirements,
thereby increasing overall force protection for the warfighter.
Therefore, the committee recommends $26.9 million in PE
63287F, an increase of $5.0 million for development of a fixed-
installation, high energy transmission x-ray detection system.
Global positioning system
The budget requested $87.4 million in PE 63421F for Global
Positioning System (GPS).
The committee recognizes the significance of GPS to both
the civil and military communities and therefore the impact
from loss of this capability. The committee is concerned with
the increasingly sophisticated threats against GPS. The
committee believes this may warrant an earlier than planned
introduction of the operational capability of GPS III.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
explore and submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 28, 2006, on the merit of truncating the
planned purchases of the GPS IIF satellites and the accelerated
introduction of the GPS III satellites.
Global positioning system user equipment
The budget requested $125.8 million in PE 35164F for Global
Positioning System (GPS) user equipment, but contained only
$5.4 million for testing of Joint GPS Combat Effectiveness
(JGPSCE) through the Joint Navigation Warfare Center.
The committee recognizes the increased proliferation of
jamming technology aimed at GPS and notes JGPSCE testing is
designed to abate this threat. The committee believes the
Department of Defense should continue to remain several steps
ahead of foreign adversaries in addressing this threat.
The committee recommends $130.8 million in PE 35164F, an
increase of $5.0 million for increased support of the JGPSCE
tests.
High modulus polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber
The budget request contained $74.2 million in PE 62102F,
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 $79.2 million for PE
62102F, an increase of $5.0 million for the development and
certification of a domestic-based manufacturer of high modulus
PAN carbon fiber.
KC-135 replacement program
The budget request contained $99.2 million for the KC-135
replacement program.
In committee report (H. Rept. 108-106) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public
Law 108-136) and committee report (H. Rept. 108-491)
accompanying the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375),
the committee expressed concern that a substantial portion of
the Air Force's KC-135 air refueling tanker fleet will reach
simultaneous maturity, and will require substantial investment
to operate, maintain, and eventually replace this fleet. The
committee notes that the average age of the KC-135 air
refueling tanker fleet is 44 years, and understands that the
KC-135 fleet has accumulated significantly more flying hours
during the past four years to support aerial refueling missions
in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Noble Eagle. To address this concern, the committee
notes that section 8132 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287) appropriated
$100.0 million in a tanker replacement transfer fund for this
purpose, and further notes that the Department of the Air Force
plans to begin a systems development and demonstration program
to replace the KC-135 fleet in fiscal year 2006.
The committee strongly encourages the Department of the Air
Force to use the appropriated funds provided in fiscal year
2005, and its authorized and appropriated funds for fiscal year
2006, to proceed apace in the KC-135 tanker replacement program
during fiscal year 2006 to ensure that the United States
retains a strong and sustainable aerial refueling capability.
Joint battlespace infosphere security initiative
The budget request contained $93.3 million in PE 62702F,
command control and communications, but included no funds for
the joint battlespace infosphere (JBI) security initiative.
The committee recognizes the potential JBI could provide to
integrate data from numerous global information management
sources for Joint Task Force operations relying upon the net-
centric concept. JBI builds on the base of commercial-off-the-
shelf (COTS) software which is enhanced to enable system
survivability, scalability and performance demanded by the
Department of Defense. Current implementation of COTS public
key infrastructure, multi-level security guards, and firewalls
are not sufficient to guarantee the level of trustworthiness
required with a net-centric information enterprise. In order to
transition JBI functionality to the warfighter, it must be able
to provide a secure, trusted information management system.
Additional funding would enable software testing, validation,
and submission of the JBI system for certification.
Therefore, the committee recommends $97.2 million for PE
62702F, an increase of $3.9 million for the JBI security
initiative, in support of an unfunded Air Force priority.
Laser threat warning attack reporting
The budget request contained $53.4 million in PE 63500F for
multi-disciplinary advanced development space technology, but
contained no funds for Laser Threat Warning Attack Reporting
(LTWAR) for space.
The committee believes the nation has an obligation to
protect and defend its space assets. Given the potential for
laser threats to those assets, the committee believes that
there must be increased research and development of warning
sensors that would provide notice of laser intrusion or attack.
The committee recommends $55.9 million in PE 63500F, an
increase of $2.5 million for LTWAR.
Lasers for advanced manufacturing and defense applications
The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 63112F,
advanced materials for weapons systems, but included no funds
for lasers for advanced manufacturing and defense applications
(LAMDA).
The committee notes the potential for the LAMDA program to
provide an expanded capability to meet manufacturing and
materials testing requirements at the Air Force Research Laser
Hardened Materials Evaluation Laboratory while simultaneously
providing a mechanism for transferring defense technology to
the commercial marketplace. LAMDA also demonstrates the
capacity to provide new capabilities for wide-ranging national
defense applications such as micro-fabrication for missile
defense, rapid prototyping and repair capability for weapon
systems sustainment and laser materials interaction testing for
survivability of U.S. weapons systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends for PE 63112F, an
increase of $4.8 million for LAMDA, in support of an unfunded
Air Force priority.
Low profile arresting gear
The budget request contained $26.2 million in PE 65978F for
sustained activities at Air Force test and evaluation
facilities.
The committee notes that a number of airports are used by
both commercial and military aircraft, and that the
installation of arresting gear equipment required by military
aircraft may cause interference with commercial flights. To
address this problem, one initiative is the introduction of a
low profile arresting system that will minimize physical
interference and obstructions to commercial aircraft. The
system is designed to remove runway side obstructions, meet the
requirements of the Air Force's airfield obstruction reduction
initiative, increase operational safety, and reduce maintenance
costs compared to the legacy arresting gear systems currently
in use.
The committee recommends $28.2 million in PE 65978F, an
increase of $2.0 million for test and evaluation of the low
profile arresting gear.
Management of black and white space
The committee remains convinced that the integration of
black (classified) and white (unclassified) space activities
enhances national security. The creation of a closer
relationship between the black and white space communities
benefits the nation by avoiding unnecessary redundancy in
systems, reducing barriers necessary to effective information
sharing, leveraging the capability of both communities, and
facilitating much needed communications about common issues. As
such, the committee encourages continued focus on the following
areas:
(1) Continued integration of black and white space
programs: The committee commends the recent decision by
the Secretary of Defense and the Director, Central
Intelligence to produce a single system for the
military and intelligence communities in the Space
Radar Program and encourages the two organizations to
seek additional opportunities for joint research and
development, information sharing, and program
management;
(2) Requirements: In the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136), Congress required the Department of Defense (DOD)
to develop a space science and technology (S&T)
strategy to set goals and a process for achieving those
goals. In a report to Congress entitled ``New
Department of Defense Space Science and Technology
Strategy Provides Basis for Optimizing Investments, but
Future Versions Need to be More Robust,'' the
Government Accountability Office found that DOD's plan
should contain stronger links to DOD's requirements
generating processes, identifying additional measures
for assessing progress in achieving strategic goals,
and explicitly covering all efforts related to space
S&T. The committee believes it is necessary to ensure
there are mechanisms in place to develop such links
within and between black and white space. The committee
believes this includes both partnership and
coordination of funding of space S&T efforts;
(3) Space Control: Given the military's reliance on
space systems, it is imperative to develop a plan to
protect and defend our space assets, but one that does
not limit our ability to operate in space as required.
The committee encourages cooperation between black and
white space systems development to ensure all
appropriate measures are taken to ensure data integrity
and hardware survivability. The committee expects the
Administration will consider the policy implications of
its space control plans and begin a necessary and
continued dialogue with Congress;
(4) Systems Architecture and Horizontal Integration:
The committee believes there is significant value in
the development of a community-wide architecture for a
horizontal integration of intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance, and communications systems. The fate of
recent classified and unclassified programs in this
area suggests that much more work must be performed
before achieving program stability; and
(5) Space Acquisitions: The national security space
acquisition performance over the past decade has been
unacceptable. Both classified and unclassified space
programs have suffered unrealistic baselines,
idealistic cost estimates, inadequate technology
development before systems design, and insufficient
government systems engineering oversight and expertise.
Despite suggestions that reforms have been enacted to
address the inadequacies of the acquisition system, the
committee remains unconvinced that sufficient progress
has been achieved. Management structures and processes
must be put into place to address these problems and
return the national security space acquisitions culture
to one that pursues visionary perspectives and achieves
success in high risk endeavors.
Manned reconnaissance systems
The budget request contained $8.1 million in PE 35207F for
Manned Reconnaissance Systems.
The committee notes the potential of the EAN-105E phased
array SIGINT antenna to significantly enhance mission
performance of the Rivet Joint aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
35207F to complete range and flight testing of this antenna on
the RC-135 test-bed aircraft.
Maui space surveillance system
The budget request contained $5.8 million in PE 63444F for
the Maui space surveillance system, but included no funding for
the High Accuracy Network Determination System (HANDS).
The committee recognizes that the HANDS capability would
reduce the potential for collisions of space assets by reducing
errors in the current space-object maintenance catalog.
The committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 63444F, an
increase of $5.0 million for HANDS.
Metals affordability
The budget request included $36.7 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 $14.0 million in PE
63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative.
Miniaturized targeting sensor development
The budget request contained $93.3 million in PE 62204F for
electro-optical sensor and related development but contained no
funding specifically for a compact, ultra-sensitive optical
receiver to improve smart and loitering stand-off weapons
targeting.
The committee strongly supports efforts to develop improved
sensors with gains in size, weight, power-consumption
requirements, and capability. The committee recognizes the
potential battlefield applications facilitated by developing
more intelligent and precise sensors, particularly as they may
be utilized in unmanned systems. The committee supports further
development of opto-electronic technologies with the aim of
producing smaller, lighter, and less costly capabilities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 62204F specifically to develop a compact ultra-
sensitive optical receiver to improve smart and loitering
stand-off weapons targeting.
Missile and space technical collection
The committee is aware of the work the National Air and
Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) is conducting in the MASINT
field and its value to the warfighter at the strategic,
operational, and tactical intelligence levels.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
NASIC to develop a capability that would facilitate the use of
data collected by airborne platforms and sensors for MASINT
applications.
Multi-disciplinary space technology
The budget request contained $81.3 million in PE 62500F for
multi-disciplinary space technology, but contained no funds for
development of upper stage engine technology.
The committee believes access to space is a national
security issue and notes that investment in upper stage engine
technology would advance liquid rocket technology for that
purpose.
The committee recommends $87.3 million in PE 62500F, an
increase of $6.0 million for upper stage engine technology.
Nanocrystalline diamond coating
The budget request contained $39.5 million in PE 41318F for
CV-22 development, but included no funds for nanocrystalline
room temperature diamond coating. The CV-22 is a Special
Operations Forces (SOF) variant of the V-22 vertical lift,
multi-mission tiltrotor aircraft and will provide a capability
to insert, extract, and re-supply special operation forces into
politically or militarily denied areas.
The committee understands that nanocrystalline room
temperature diamond coating technology has been developed with
characteristics that offer promise for significantly improved
anti-icing protection on aircraft surfaces such as the radome
on the CV-22 aircraft. The committee further understands that
this coating material has applications for protection against
surface erosion caused by sand and other abrasive materials
encountered in potential CV-22 operating locations, and that
application of nanocrystalline room temperature diamond coating
technology may result in future savings by reducing costs for
replacement of expensive aircraft components and surfaces.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $41.5 million in PE
41318F, an increase of $2.0 million for development of the
nanocrystalline room temperature diamond coating technology.
Operationally responsive launch
The budget request contains $23.5 million in PE 64855F for
operationally responsive launch, but contained no funds to
accelerate the TACSAT-3/Joint Warfighting Space-2 (JWS-2)
demonstration or for Blue MAJIC.
The committee believes the TACSAT-3/JWS-2 demonstration
would provide three significant opportunities. First, it would
move the Department of Defense closer to providing rapid
augmentation and reconstitution of space capabilities. Second,
the demonstration would assess the potential capability of on-
orbit assets dedicated to operational and tactical commanders.
And third, the demonstration would allow the Department to
analyze the ability of small satellites to provide niche
capabilities as well as complement and supplement larger
satellites.
The committee understands the importance of blue force
tracking in the effort to reduce fratricide and increase force
protection. The committee recognizes Blue MAJIC will provide
the field commander a significant tool to improve blue force
tracking. The committee also realizes that Blue MAJIC will
pursue a strategy that furthers the employment of responsive
launch and integrates current technology into operations.
The committee recommends $39.0 million in PE 64855F for
operationally responsive launch, an increase of $13.5 million
for the TACSAT-3/JWS-2 demonstration and $2.0 million for Blue
MAJIC.
Penetrator study
The committee understands that Hard and Deeply Buried
Targets (HDBTs) pose a threat to national security and that
currently, the Department of Defense does not have the
capability to hold many of these targets at risk. The committee
further understands that the Commander, United States Strategic
Command has a need to conduct sled tests that would evaluate
the feasibility of various options for penetrator weapons that
could be used against HDBTs.
The committee authorizes $4.0 million in PE 64327F for a
penetrator test that would evaluate the feasibility of various
options for different types of penetrators that could hold
HDBTs at risk. The committee intends that this study be
completed by the end of fiscal year 2006. Should additional
funds above the $4.0 million be required for this study, the
Secretary of Defense should submit a reprogramming request to
the congressional defense committees.
Project Suter
The budget request contained $1.0 million in PE 35206F for
the development of Advanced Technology and Sensors.
The committee is supportive of Project Suter, which
experiments with concepts, systems, tactics, techniques, and
procedures that enable warfighters to access and utilize
comprehensive, dynamic information superiority operations
against conventional and asymmetric threat targets. The
committee notes that the Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment
2004 demonstrated some of Project Suter's capabilities which
provided real-time defeat of enemy command and control,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and other
weapon capabilities by leveraging existing Department of
Defense information technology systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million in PE 35206F, for the research and development of
Project Suter.
Quick-donning oxygen mask
The budget request contained $7.3 million in PE 64706F for
development of life support systems, but included no funds for
an integrated oxygen mask and goggle system.
The committee notes that current Air Mobility Command (AMC)
procedures for smoke in the cockpit require pilots to don both
an oxygen mask and a separate anti-smoke goggle to provide
respiratory and ocular protection. However, the committee
understands that the existing anti-smoke goggles were never
designed to integrate with the oxygen mask's suspension
assembly and that, in an emergency, the anti-smoke goggles
would be donned after donning the oxygen mask resulting in a
situation where the pilot would not have ocular protection
until the separate anti-smoke goggles were in place. As a
result of this situation, the committee understands that
development of an integrated oxygen mask and goggle systems is
AMC's number one initiative on its life support item
development list.
Consequently, the committee recommends $12.3 million in PE
64706F, an increase of $5.0 million, for development on an
integrated oxygen mask and goggle system.
Radio frequency identification rapid adoption collaboration initiative
The budget request contained $36.9 million in PE 78011F for
manufacturing technology development.
The committee notes the development and application of
radio frequency identification (RFID) for monitoring the
inventory and shipment of cargo and parts. Similar in principle
to the use of optical bar coding, radio frequency
identification permits stand-off monitoring of the progress of
a coded item through a supply chain. The committee notes
proposals for implementing RFID in Department of Defense
production and supply chains that could result in significant
improvements in inventory management and cost savings in the
operation of the enterprise supply chain. One such proposal
would develop a methodical adoption process for using RFID
technology by small and medium enterprise suppliers within DOD
supply chain and develop an electronically coordinated lean
manufacturing toolkit for their use.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
78011F for the establishment of a collaborative initiative for
a pilot program to demonstrate the potential for rapid adoption
of RFID technology in defense enterprise supply chains.
Rocket systems launch program
The budget request contained $13.8 million in PE 68560F for
the rocket systems launch program, but contained no funds for
the ballistic missile range safety technology system (BMRST).
The committee places a high priority on a responsive launch
capability and believes BMRST may play a promising role in
fielding that capability.
The committee recommends $18.3 million in PE 68560F, an
increase of $4.5 million to explore the application of BMRST in
the development of a responsive launch capability.
Satellite threat evaluation environment development
The budget request contained $79.4 million in PE 62202F for
human effectiveness applied research, but contained no funds
for Satellite Threat Evaluation Environment Development
(STEED).
The committee recognizes STEED would determine threats
against space-based assets, quantify those threats, determine
threat capabilities and locations, and aid decision-makers in
preparing adequate defensive counterspace responses to those
threats
The committee recommends $80.9 million in PE 62202F, an
increase of $1.5 million for STEED.
Single integrated space picture
The budget request contained $85.2 million in PE 35906F for
the development of the Single Integrated Space Picture (SISP)
program.
The committee notes that SISP seeks to provide situational
awareness of space capabilities, threats and operations. The
program's objectives are to provide a common operational
picture of space to include surveillance, warning,
communications, data relay, and navigation between various
forces. The committee believes these goals are important to the
development of a true common operational picture. However, the
committee does not believe SISP should be developed in a vacuum
or to serve a service-specific requirement. The committee
believes that in order to have a true common operational
picture, commanders must be able to see air, ground, space, and
maritime assets to make combat decisions.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to refer to
the Single Integrated Air Picture report language elsewhere in
this report.
Space based infra-red system high
The budget request contained $756.6 million in PE 64441F
for the Space Based Infra-Red System High (SBIRS) program.
The committee has expressed repeated concern regarding the
continued cost increases, schedule delays, and technical
problems associated with the program. The committee maintains
strong support of a next generation early warning capability
and of the SBIRS program. However, should the program continue
to exceed the cost and schedule benchmarks set after the
establishment of another new baseline for SBIRS and its
associated cost estimates, the committee may be forced to find
an alternative to the SBIRS program.
The committee recognizes the Department of the Air Force is
currently performing an independent program assessment
reviewing the technical and cost baselines of the SBIRS
program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
review and certify the final results of the assessment and
submit a copy of the certified assessment to the congressional
defense committees and congressional intelligence committees
within 30 days after its completion.
Space cadre
The committee commends the efforts in coordination and
development of a space cadre over the last year by each of the
services and the National Security Space Office. The committee
recognizes the remarkable progress made; however, the committee
continues to see some measure of resistance and a lack of
consistent vision for the space cadre.
The committee firmly believes the success of our nation's
future activities in space, and the quality of our national
security, depends on the professional development and
sustainment of a qualified space cadre. This requires changes
to training, education, personnel systems, assignment
processes, and promotion criteria, for example. The committee
believes that this enterprise demands nothing short of a
culture change across the Department of Defense and in
particular within the Air Force. The committee believes it is
important that this cultural change take root in the Air Force
in a deeper and more visible manner than the other services.
The corporate Air Force leadership must embrace this change.
Given past performance, the committee believes that as the
developer and acquisition agent of space systems designed to
satisfy the needs of all services, the Air Force must focus
more of its space cadre efforts specifically on acquisitions.
The importance of the skills required by competent teams to
build and acquire space systems cannot be underestimated. These
skills must be developed and rewarded at all levels of the Air
Force, but most importantly, at senior levels of leadership.
Critical acquisition positions must be filled with experienced
personnel to satisfy the demands of these important positions.
The committee recommends the Department of the Air Force focus
portions of its space cadre effort on the acquisition workforce
and in the context of the requirements and intent of the
Defense Acquisitions Workforce Improvement Act (Public Law 101-
510) for the purpose of improving space acquisition
performance.
Space radar
The budget request contained $225.8 million in PE 63858F
for space radar.
In an attempt to address the technical and affordability
concerns of Congress, the Air Force has proposed the
development of a quarter-scale space radar demonstration. The
committee applauds and encourages the refreshing thinking
within the Air Force that conceived of a subscale demonstration
option as a part of the space radar acquisition strategy. The
application of this type of solution to other space programs in
the future may validate the program and prevent many of the
problems that plague space systems acquisition.
The intelligence community and warfighters have asked for a
radar capability and have little concern about which platform
collects the data. The committee believes that the future
success and stability of the space radar program rests in the
demonstration of a national radar capability in which a space
demonstration is a component integrated with air and ground
components.
The first step towards producing a successful and stable
program is the development of a comprehensive demonstration
program that will provide an opportunity to assess the utility
versus the cost of a space radar system in the context of a
broader radar capability. The committee understands the keys to
producing an affordable and effective space radar solution will
be the integration of airborne and space radar assets and the
development of a robust and highly advanced ground exploitation
system. The demonstration program must fully incorporate these
components of an integrated radar capability. To date, neither
component has received sufficient emphasis or investment. The
committee supports the demonstration of a greater capability of
these components in the context of space assets using existing
classified and unclassified data sources and believes a
demonstration of this capability should be conducted prior to
investment in a new space system or significant development of
the proposed space demonstration.
The committee is convinced that the Air Force is still in
the planning process and has not yet fully considered the
requirements for the described demonstration program. The
committee does not believe the Air Force has sufficiently
emphasized affordability as a key objective, and encourages the
Air Force to reassess the range of technical options available
to provide increased utility to both the intelligence and
warfighter communities.
The committee recommends $100.0 million in PE 63858F, a
reduction of $125.8 million for the space radar program. The
committee directs program funds be invested in the
demonstration of the following:
(1) Ground exploitation capability;
(2) Horizontal integration;
(3) Continued radar technology maturation;
(4) New technology breakthroughs that will lower the
payload weight and cost.
The committee recommends the Air Force thoroughly plan a
demonstration program maximizing the use of ground, airborne,
and existing space assets before committing to the new
development of a subscale spacecraft. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with Director of
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Director of
the National Reconnaissance Office, to develop and submit a
report to the congressional defense committees and
congressional intelligence committees by February 1, 2006, with
a detailed five-year (fiscal years 2006 through 2010) radar
demonstration program plan that will incorporate the above
direction and focus on risk reduction, modeling and simulation,
ground and air demonstrations and tests, and the use of all
planned or existing space assets. The program plan should
include an option for the launch of a space demonstration no
earlier than fiscal year 2009 and should provide annual
technical and cost milestones that if met will provide
confidence in a technically feasible and affordable development
plan for space radar. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to perform a
detailed national utility study, develop a joint concept of
operations for a future horizontally integrated
radarcapability, and submit a report to the congressional defense
committees and congressional intelligence committees by February 28,
2006, on the utility study and the concept of operations.
Space situational awareness
The budget request contained $151.1 million in PE 35910F
for Spacetrack, but contained no funds to accelerate the space
based surveillance system or the upgrade to the Air Force Space
Surveillance System.
The committee believes that our space assets remain
vulnerable and that the nation has the responsibility to
protect and defend these assets from any threat. The foundation
of any credible policy regarding protection and defense of U.S.
space assets is a comprehensive space situational awareness
system. The committee is concerned that the development of a
comprehensive space situational awareness system is moving
forward too slowly and without a coherent strategy or vision.
The committee recommends $187.1 million in PE 35910F for
Spacetrack, an increase of $30.0 million for the acceleration
of the space based surveillance system and $6.0 million to
accelerate the S-band upgrade to the Air Force Space
Surveillance System.
Space technology
The budget request contained $84.5 million in PE 62601F for
space technology, but contained no funds for elastic memory
composites or for polyimide macro electromechanical systems
(PMEMS) 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
collapsible, lower-weight composite tank structures.
The committee is concerned by affordability issues of a
radar system in space and is interested in pursuing
breakthrough technology that may provide low cost, high payoff
solutions for the future. The committee sees promise in the
ability of PMEMS to reduce power aperture requirements to
levels that permit dramatic reductions in the size, weight,
cooling and power consumption of a space radar system and
therefore total system size and cost.
The committee recommends $93.5 million for PE 62601F, an
increase of $4.0 million for elastic memory composites and $5.0
million for PMEMS.
Transformational satellite communications system
The budget request contained $835.8 million in PE 63845F
for the transformational satellite communications systems
(TSAT).
The committee recognizes the necessity of the capability
that TSAT would provide for the warfighter. The development and
deployment of this technology would transform military
communications and enable additional military capabilities.
The committee understands that before the capability of
TSAT or a similar system can be fielded, the space acquisition
community must succeed in no less than eight high-risk
technical areas.
The committee notes space acquisition has been
characterized with repeated cost overruns, schedule delays, and
reduction of expected capability. The Government Accountability
Office and the Defense Science Board's Young panel have
highlighted the systemic problems leading to multiple
acquisition failures and provided recommendations to correct
the causes. These problems include reliance on immature
technology, overdependence on the contractor for program
management, and a lack of government systems engineering and
cost analysis expertise.
In an effort to achieve transformation, the Air Force has
continued to initiate programs that are technologically
revolutionary. The committee commends the Department of the Air
Force on its vision for the solutions of the future and its
desire to embrace risk, but is not confident the current
acquisition system can accommodate the risk associated with
leaps to revolutionary technology.
Acquisition and management practices, as well as industry
standards and quality control must be vastly improved and, in
some cases, rebuilt before the country can endeavor to achieve
the transformation planned in the current budget. Today's
critical transformation opportunities exist in finding new ways
for the acquisition community to do business and address the
fundamental need for change. Once the systemic shortfalls are
addressed, the Department should once again push the envelope
on technology and risk for its military space systems. Until
then, and to address those shortfalls, the committee recommends
an evolutionary versus revolutionary approach. The committee
remains convinced, given the current state of acquisition, that
this approach will provide more capability to the warfighter
sooner and do so in a more cost effective manner.
The committee believes, given current acquisition
schedules, that funding for evolving Wideband Gapfiller System
and Advanced Extremely High Frequency capabilities will not be
required until fiscal year 2007. As such, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct an independent
analysis of alternatives as described in Section 912 of this
Act.
The committee recommends $435.8 million in PE 63845F, a
reduction of $400.0 million for TSAT. The committee directs the
Department to shift the focus of the TSAT program in fiscal
year 2006 from award of an acquisition contract to continued
development and risk reduction of the critical technologies
that will allow the deployment of this capability to the
warfighter. These technologies should include development of
internet protocol, a router in space, and laser communications.
The committee urges the Department of Defense to consider a
more prudent balance between technical risk and providing
increased capability to the warfighter during the Quadrennial
Defense Review and the fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008
budget submissions.
Warfighter pocket computer development
The budget request contained $29.8 million in PE 63231F,
crew systems and personnel protection technology, but included
no funds for the warfighter pocket computer development.
The committee notes the potential combat capability the
warfighter pocket computer could bring to the Battlefield Air
Operations (BAO) kit. The BAO kit is an integrated terminal
attack control capability that enables special operations
forces battlefield airmen to find, track, target and control
friendly aircraft, as well as other weapons assets, and then
provide follow-on target damage assessment. The effort to
develop a rugged, sub-notebook sized computer to assist in
these combat duties could greatly enhance the development and
capability of the BAO kit's battlefield air targeting man-aided
knowledge improvement effort.
Therefore, the committee recommends $33.3 million for PE
63231F, an increase of $3.5 million for warfighter pocket
computer development.
Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Overview
The budget request contained $18.8 billion for Defense-wide
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
The committee recommends $19.1 billion, an increase of
$289.4 million to the budget request.
Items of Special Interest
Accelerated 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. This funding may also 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.
Accelerating transition and fielding of advance technologies for
emerging critical operational needs of special operations
forces
The committee believes that the U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) would particularly benefit by access to the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering's Quick Reaction
Special Projects Program. Unique among combatant commands,
SOCOM has full acquisition authority for special operations
peculiar equipment, material, and supplies. Recent combat
experience has demonstrated the urgent need for several new
items of special operations peculiar equipment that the
Commander, SOCOM has no readily available authority to develop
and procure for his troops in combat. Since this sort of
quickly emerging requirement is precisely what the Quick
Reaction Special Projects Program is intended to support, the
committee believes the Commander, SOCOM, should be allowed to
avail himself of this authority.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Director, Defense
Research and Engineering, to make $10.0 million of the
increased funding recommended by the committee elsewhere in the
committee report available for the exclusive use of the
Commander, SOCOM.
Advanced concept technology demonstrations
The budget request contained $163.6 million in PE 63750D8Z
for advanced concept technology demonstrations, but included no
funds for shoulder fired smart round (SPIKE) urban warfare
system development. The SPIKE missile fills a critical need for
a low-cost, light-weight fire and forget missile for ground
troops to use against lightly armored and other material
targets and has possible maritime application as well.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE
63750D8Z, for SPIKE missile development.
Advanced tactical laser program
The budget request contained $104.3 million in PE 1160402BB
for special operations advanced technology development,
including $61.8 million for the advanced tactical laseradvanced
concept technology demonstration program (ATL ACTD). The committee
expressed concern with the ATL ACTD program in the committee report on
H.R. 4200 (H. Rept. 108-491). Despite the committee's doubts about the
military feasibility of continuing development of a large chemical
tactical laser for deployment aboard a C-130 aircraft, the budget
request for fiscal year 2006 for the ATL ACTD is $20.0 million higher
than was projected in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The
committee notes that this program comprises 13 percent of the U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) research and development budget and
is projected to consume more than $340.0 million in additional SOCOM
research and development funds in fiscal year 2007 and beyond. The
committee believes that SOCOM has more urgent and useful priorities for
research and development funding than the ATL ACTD.
The committee recommends $41.8 million in PE 1160402BB, a
reduction of $20.0 million for the ATL ACTD.
Alternative fuels
The committee understands alternative fuels are comprised
solely or partially from sources other than fossil fuel and
notes the benefit of alternative fuels as a possible means for
reducing reliance upon foreign oil reserves.
Bio-diesel and ethanol, fuel products made of soybeans and
corn, respectively, meet existing federal guidelines that
facilitate increased consumption of alternative fuels. The
committee notes that officials in the Department of the Army
and the Department of Defense have taken steps towards greater
alternative fuel use, including the purchase of alternative
fueled vehicles.
The committee urges further research and development in the
area of alternative fuels and expects the Department of Defense
to continue its efforts to make greater use of such products
and to increase the number of alternative fueled vehicles.
Army space and missile defense simulation upgrade
The budget request contained $189.7 million in PE 63755D8Z
for the Department of Defense high performance computing
modernization program.
The Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC)
Simulation Center is a mission critical computer facility,
which was established to provide supercomputer computational,
high performance network, and storage capabilities. The center
supports the development, testing, and integration of strategic
defense technologies and simulations, including computational
physics and chemistry, weapons design, and force modeling for
SMDC, the Missile Defense Agency, the Navy, and the Army.
The committee notes increased requirements for end-to-end
simulation, testing, and evaluation of advanced interceptors
and sensors. These requirements include extrapolating data
beyond the capabilities of existing wind tunnels to determine
interceptor performance for programs such as the kinetic energy
interceptor, lightweight endoatmospheric projectile, and
Standard Missile 3. As sensors are upgraded to meet new
threats, support boost phase discrimination, target signature
discrimination, and cruise missile defense, improved seeker
image analysis is required. In conjunction with planned
increases in network bandwidth and improved architectures, the
proposed upgrades will triple the center's classified
computational capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.1 million in PE
63755D8Z for the SMDC simulation center upgrade program.
Asymmetric protocols for biological defense
The budget request contained $145.4 million in PE 62383E
for biological warfare defense applied research.
A military or terrorist scenario in which aerosolized
biological agents such as anthrax spores or smallpox virus are
used would almost certainly result in mass casualties.
Weaponized forms of the agents offer significant challenges to
medical treatments that are not found in naturally occurring
forms. While antibiotics are the only approved method for
treating anthrax, the 2003 bioterrorist anthrax attack in
Washington, D.C., showed that antibiotics are unfortunately not
adequate to provide full treatment against inhalation anthrax.
The committee also notes that there are a number of biological
agents that could, with appropriate development and
weaponization, be used in biological warfare or in a terrorist
attack. Developing specific protections against all possible
biological agents presents a significant challenge. 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 and also work in concert with other
methods of treatment.
The committee notes research in therapeutics, sponsored by
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, shows good
results from laboratory testing in mice against pox virus and
against anthrax and appears to have the potential for providing
broad spectrum protection. Other tests have involved
therapeutics that may reinforce the innate immunity of the
host. A detailed review of the research in November 2004
indicates that the results of the research to date are
promising and the program is ready to move into trials with
larger animals.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62383E for applied research in multivalent asymmetric protocols
that would provide broad spectrum protection for biological
defense.
Ballistic missile defense
The budget request contained $7.8 billion for ballistic
missile defense.
The committee notes that the budget request represents a
$1.0 billion decrease from the fiscal year 2006 projections
contained in the fiscal year 2005 request. Given that the
Department of Defense had to make difficult programmatic
decisions, the committee approves of the overall strategy
employed in revising the fiscal year 2006 request for ballistic
missile defense. While the committee understands that the
spiral development strategy employed by the Department for
ballistic missile defense is appropriate to the research and
development nature of the ballistic missile defense program
elements, the committee also notes that rigorous testing that
leads to fielding of operational systems takes priority over
future block research and development efforts. Thus, the
committee recommends a reallocation of the request to focus on
testing and fielding of near term capability ballistic missile
defense elements. The committee also encourages the Department
to continually reevaluate future block efforts in light of the
results from operationally realistic testing to ensure that
future year research and development efforts in one program do
not get too far ahead of the actual performance results of the
baseline system being tested, such as with Ground-based
Midcourse Defense and the Airborne Laser program.
The committee recommends $7.9 billion, an increase of
$100.0 million.
Boost defense segment
The budget request contained $483.9 million in PE 63883C
for boost phase defense. The committee notes that the Airborne
Laser (ABL) program met two major milestones in late 2004 and
that the program has been structured so as to require
achievement of incremental knowledge points prior to the
scheduled lethal demonstration in 2008. The committee approves
of this program restructuring that facilitates objective
evaluations of program performance by the Department of Defense
at specified knowledge points.
The committee notes that to make progress towards the 2008
lethal demonstration, the System Integration Laboratory Laser
Long Run Performance Test, scheduled in fiscal year 2005, is a
critical milestone. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit with the fiscal year 2007 budget request a
specific evaluation of the System Integration Laboratory Laser
Long Run Performance Test. Included in this specific evaluation
shall be an assessment of how the test fared against duration
goals set prior to the test, the ability to duplicate this
duration at expected ABL aircraft operating altitudes, and the
ballistic missile threats that can be defeated with confidence
by laser firings of the duration tested.
While the committee supports the knowledge point approach
taken by the Department towards the Airborne Laser program, it
also recognizes that decisions on future funding support must
take into account the operational capabilities and costs of a
deployed boost phase defense system. The committee notes that
while the Department has stated in the budget request that the
ABL program is the primary boost phase defense program, funds
are also requested for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) or
System Interceptor Program. Accordingly, the committee includes
a provision (sec. 231) that would require the Secretary to
submit a report on a capability and cost estimate comparison
between the ABL, KEI and any other boost phase defense system
under consideration by the Department.
For purposes of comparison, the report shall assume the
planned ABL and KEI Block 2010 capabilities as submitted in the
fiscal year 2006 budget request. The report should include the
following elements in its comparison of the Airborne Laser and
Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs:
(1) An assessment of the operational capabilities of
the two systems against ballistic missiles launched
from North Korea or a location in the Middle East
against the continental United States, Alaska, or
Hawaii;
(2) An assessment of the quantity of operational
assets required for deployment periods of seven days,
thirty days, ninety days, and one year;
(3) Basing options, including forward-deployed
options for Airborne Laser and for both land and sea-
based options for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor; and
(4) An assessment of life-cycle costs to include
research and development efforts, procurement,
deployment, operating and infrastructure costs.
Core
The budget request contained $447.0 million in PE 63890C
for ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems core.
Within the program, the request reflected an increase of
$63.9 million for BMD information management systems. While the
committee notes that additional funds are required to support
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Center, Von Braun Complex, the
MDA Campus, and enterprise applications compliance
requirements, it does not support the full amount of the
requested increase.
The committee recommends $407.0 million in PE 63890C, a
decrease of $40.0 million for BMD information management
systems.
Midcourse defense segment
The budget request contained $3.3 billion in PE 63882C for
ballistic missile defense (BMD) midcourse defense segment.
The committee is concerned that the test program for
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) may not be adequately
resourced in the budget request based on recent reports from an
independent review team chartered by the Director, Missile
Defense Agency to review the GMD test program following recent
GMD flight test failures. The independent review team
recommended additional ground test and expanded qualification
test resources for the GMD program. The committee recommends an
increase of $50.0 million for additional ground test units and
expanded qualification testing to support the GMD test program.
The committee further recommends an increase of $100.0 million
for an additional flight-intercept test from an operational
silo to be conducted as soon as practicable.
The committee notes that the budget request includes $50.0
million for long lead procurement of Block 2008 ground based
interceptors 31-40. The committee believes that testing of the
Block 2004 and Block 2006 capabilities takes priority over long
lead procurement for Block 2008 interceptors. The committee
recommends reallocating resources from Block 2008 ground based
interceptors 36-40 to fund the higher priority effort of
ensuring the ground test program is robust and fully resourced.
Accordingly, the committee recommends funding only the first 5
(31-35) of the additional 10 Block 2008 interceptors, a
reduction of $25.0 million.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
announced plans to cancel the dual booster strategy and instead
will rely upon the Orbital Sciences (OBV) booster in the
future. The committee also understands that the Department has
yet to make a final decision on what option to pursue for
termination of the Lockheed Martin (BV+) booster procurement.
While the committee takes no action with respect to any savings
that may be realized in shifting to the single booster
approach, the committee does encourage the Department to
consider applying any future savings to flight test ground
based interceptors.
The budget request contained $836.0 million for Aegis BMD,
including $24.8 million for the Japanese Cooperative Program.
The committee is encouraged by the recent successful intercept
of an Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block I Missile. The committee
fully supports the Aegis BMD program and provides $881.0
million for AEGIS BMD, an increase of $45.0 million as follows:
$25.0 million to support development of the Aegis Ballistic
Missile Defense signal processor; $10.0 million to accelerate
the throttleable divert and axial control system as a risk
reduction alternative to the existing solid divert and attitude
control system design; and $10.0 million to accelerate
integration of the two-color seeker into the SM-3 Block IB
Kinetic Warhead.
The committee recommends $3.4 billion in PE 63882C, an
increase of $170.0 million for the midcourse defense segment.
Missile defense advanced technology
The committee notes that the Director, Missile Defense
Agency and the Commander, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command (SMDC) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in March
2005 that covers research, development, testing, and transition
of advanced technology for the Ballistic Missile Defense
System. This MOA retains overall program planning and direction
for advanced technology programs at the Missile Defense Agency.
Further, the MOA establishes a Kill Vehicle Center of
Excellence at SMDC and assigns other advanced technology
projects to the SMDC Technical Center.
The committee understands the critical role of the SMDC
Technical Center in advanced technology development for missile
defense. The committee encourages the Missile Defense Agency to
incorporate in its Future Year Defense Plan budget process an
investment strategy to support technology innovation for future
missile defense advanced technology programs.
Procurement funding and transition of ballistic missile
defense systems to services
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has not yet clearly established a mechanism or specified the
criteria under which the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) transfers
responsibility for continued development and procurement of
missile defense systems to the services. The committee urges
the Department to reach an agreement on how to properly
allocate sufficient budgetary resources to ensure the seamless
transition of ballistic missile defense elements to the
services prior to submission of the fiscal year 2007 budget
request.
The committee is concerned with the Future Year Defense
Plan (FYDP) strategy for procuring Aegis ballistic missile
defense (BMD) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
systems, assuming that both programs are successful in their
planned developmental intercept flight tests. The Aegis BMD
program is delaying important upgrades, particularly for a two-
color infrared seeker and a throttleable divert attitude and
control system, and assumes an inefficient production rate due
solely to fiscal constraints. Similarly, THAAD's outyear
funding is also inadequate. The MDA has already identified a
sizeable shortfall for THAAD in fiscal year 2006 and the FYDP
assumes only one THAAD firing unit will be procured.
The committee urges the Department to reevaluate its
acquisition strategy in the next budget cycle and ensure that
systems such as Aegis BMD and THAAD have a coherent strategy
that is adequately funded to transition fielded elements to the
services.
Products
The budget request contained $455.2 million in PE 63889C
for ballistic missile defense (BMD) products, an increase of
$71.4 million from the fiscal year 2005 appropriation.
The committee notes that the budget request contained an
increase of $118.1 million for command and control, battle
management and communications (C2BMC) Block 2006 and an
increase of $65.1 million for C2BMC Block 2008. While the
committee understands the importance of C2BMC to the BMD
System, it does not support such a significant increase in
spending on C2BMC Block 2008 until C2BMC Block 2006 has
completed operationally realistic testing involving actual
intercept tests. The committee authorizes $45.9 million for
C2BMC Block 2008, a decrease of $30.0 million. The committee
notes that even with this funding decrease in C2BMC Block 2008,
the authorization represents an increase of $22.0 million for
all block C2BMC spending compared to the fiscal year 2005
appropriation. The committee also directs the Department to
focus its efforts on C2BMC performance in support of near term
Block 2006 requirements.
The committee notes that the request contains $11.0 million
for Hercules Block 2010. While the committee supports the
overall goal of the Hercules program, consistent with other
recommendations in this report, it does not support funding for
future year block efforts prior to successful operational
testing of more near term projects. The committee recommends
$6.0 million for Hercules Block 2010, a decrease of $5.0
million.
The committee notes that the budget request contained $56.5
million for Joint Warfighter Support, more than double the
fiscal year 2005 appropriation. The committee does not believe
such a significant increase is warranted and notes that a
portion of the increase is to expand BMD system Exercise and
War Gaming to include fielding of new capabilities. While the
committee understands the need to look to the future as part of
spiral development, the committee also notes that efforts
looking at new capabilities are somewhat premature until the
nearer term capabilities are successfully tested. The committee
recommends $41.5 million, a decrease of $15.0 million, for
Joint Warfighter Support Block 2008.
System interceptor
The budget request contained $229.7 million in PE 63886C
for System Interceptor. As noted previously, the committee
supports the Department of Defense's (DOD) restructuring of the
Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI), or System Interceptor,
program with the fiscal year 2006 budget. This restructuring
appropriately emphasizes the development of a quick
acceleration booster as the critical knowledge point for the
KEI program. The program office plans for a KEI booster
demonstration in fiscal year 2008.
While the focus on KEI booster development is appropriate,
the committee also understands that the need to identify and
intercept a target in the boost phase presents technological
and operational challenges to either a directed energy or
kinetic energy weapon. In the KEI operational scenario, the
command and control, battle management and communications
(C2BMC) system faces a challenging timeline to facilitate
intercept while the ballistic missile is still in the boost
phase. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to
demonstrate the C2BMC timeline and fire control performance as
a critical knowledge point prior to the end of fiscal year
2006.
The committee notes that the Future Year Defense Plan
profile for the KEI program reflects substantial increases in
program funding requirements beginning in fiscal year 2007.
While the committee supports the DOD's approach to boost phase
defense, the committee observes that the Department must
carefully evaluate the affordability of future year spending
requirements for boost phase defense programs and must
reevaluate future plans based on demonstrated performance of
both the Airborne Laser (ABL) and KEI programs. Should the ABL
program fail to meet its specified requirements at the
designated program knowledge points, the committee fully
expects the Department to quickly reevaluate the primary and
secondary boost-phase options and to adjust future budget
requests accordingly.
The committee recommends $229.7 million, the amount of the
budget request for the System Interceptor program.
Technology
The budget request contained $136.2 million in PE 63175C
for ballistic missile defense technology.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
has determined that the High Altitude Airship (HAA) Advanced
Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) has experienced weight
problems and that the projected time to resolve certain
performance problems exceeds the criteria for continuation as
an ACTD program. The committee also notes that other
organizations within the Department are pursuing HAA programs
for homeland defense. The committee recommends no funding for
the HAA program, a decrease of $16.8 million.
The committee is aware of the potential enhancements that
improved wide bandgap devices offer for high power, high
frequency radars that have applications for missile defense.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to enable
the development of and insertion opportunities for Aluminum
Nitride Substrates for wide bandgap devices in missile defense
system radars.
Given the importance of intercepting ballistic missiles in
the boost phase, the committee believes that the Department
should be open to considering additional and potentially less
expensive options for boost phase defense. The committee
observes that the Air Force has conducted some preliminary
studies into the feasibility of using the advanced medium range
air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) launched from tactical aircraft to
intercept ballistic missiles in boost phase ascent. The
committee believes that tactical aircraft or unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) may potentially offer an alternate launch
platform for air intercept missiles for boost phase defense.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.8 million in PE
63175C for architectural studies to determine the technical
feasibility of the concept of using tactical systems in the
AMRAAM family launched from tactical aircraft or UAVs as
platforms from which to interdict threat ballistic missiles in
their boost phase using ``hit-to-kill'' technologies. This
study shall include an evaluation of the modifications required
to the seeker of the selected interceptor missile to perform
boost phase intercept missions.
Terminal defense segment
The budget request contained $1.1 billion in PE 63881C for
ballistic missile defense terminal defense segment.
The committee is encouraged by the aggressive flight test
schedule for the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD)
program, with 10 flight tests scheduled for fiscal years 2005
through 2007. The committee also understands that the program
is still trying to recover from both a plant explosion at the
boost motor/thrust vector actuation supplier in 2003 and a
funding reduction in fiscal year 2005. Observing that the THAAD
program represents a potentially near term fielding capability,
the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for THAAD
risk reduction.
The committee further notes that the first THAAD fire unit
is scheduled to be fielded in fiscal year 2009. While the
committee fully supports the THAAD program, it also has
concerns on the exact plans for transitioning THAAD to the
Department of the Army and for future year funding once
transitioned to an operational status. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to submit by March 1, 2006, a report
to the congressional defense committees that specifies the
testing milestones that must be met by the Missile Defense
Agency prior to transitioning THAAD fire units to the Army as
well as the Department of the Army's Future Year Defense Plan
funding for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to support
transitioning and fielding of the THAAD system.
Testing
The committee notes that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
system experienced several test setbacks last year. The
committee notes that the root cause of testing failures must be
clearly identified. The committee directs the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation to include an independent
assessment of the root cause of all testing failures
encountered during the previous year in each annual assessment
of ballistic missile defense testing submitted in accordance
with section 232(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).
In addition, the committee notes that in the most recent
annual report, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
identified multiple concerns about the Missile Defense Agency's
ability to characterize the operational capability of the
Ground-based Midcourse Defense system's limited defensive
operations against long-range ballistic missiles. The committee
directs the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation to submit
an evaluation of the Missile Defense Agency's efforts to
address these concerns in the next annual assessment report.
Business management and modernization program
The budget request contained $172.1 million in research and
development for the development of the business management
modernization program (BMMP). This program is the Department of
Defense's (DOD) plan to transform and modernize its business
and financial processes and systems. BMMP seeks to tie together
and to ensure interoperability between financial, accounting,
human resources, logistics, acquisition, information technology
infrastructure, and strategic planning and budgeting systems.
The committee is supportive of the new Defense Business
Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) that was established as a
result of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) and the
leadership that has recently occurred. The committee strongly
encourages the Secretary of Defense and the DBSMC to review and
implement section 332 of Public Law 108-375 as it lays the
foundation for defense business systems architecture,
modernization, and accountability.
In addition, the committee notes that the BMMP program
office has not finalized a strategy to expend the remainder of
its fiscal year 2005 appropriated dollars, and has not provided
a plan detailing program specific goals for the fiscal year
2006 budget request. The committee does not support funding for
an information technology program that does not have firmly
established requirements or a schedule to deliver capabilities
that are unclear at this time.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $55.4
million for the development of BMMP.
Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation
program
The budget request contained a total of $898.0 million for
chemical and biological defense research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E), including $72.5 million in PE 61384BP
for basic research, $187.8 million in PE 62384BP for applied
research, $164.5 million in PE 63384BP for advanced technology
development, $100.8 million in PE 63884BP foradvanced component
development and prototypes, $280.9 million for system development and
demonstration, $81.5 million in PE 65384BP for RDT&E management
support, and $10.1 million for operational systems development. The
budget request also contained $145.4 million in PE 62383E for the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) biological defense
research program.
The committee notes that the changing chemical and
biological threat, both to U.S. armed forces on the world's
battlefields and to U.S. homeland security, places more
emphasis on the need for responsive technology options that
could address the threat; the ability to quickly assess,
develop, and demonstrate the technology; and then, the ability
to rapidly insert or deploy the technology in fielded systems.
The committee also continues to note the wealth of new concepts
and technologies of varying levels of maturity that emerge
annually from the nation's science and technology base.
The committee recommends continuation of the chemical and
biological defense research and development initiatives
established in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375),
one in the basic research category, one in applied research
category and one in the advanced technology development
category, and adds an additional initiative in advanced
component development and prototyping. These initiatives will
provide the opportunity for emerging technologies and concepts
to compete for funding on the basis of technical merit and on
the contribution that the technology could make to the chemical
and biological defense capabilities of the armed forces and to
homeland defense. The new advanced component development and
prototyping initiative will provide a means to enhance
transition of the most promising mature technologies from the
science and technology base to acquisition programs. The
committee encourages the use of the broad agent announcement in
soliciting proposals for candidate projects under each of the
initiatives.
Chemical/biological defense basic research initiative
The committee recommends that the technologies to be
considered for funding under the basic research initiative
include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) Engineered pathogen identification and
countermeasures (``Bug to Drug'');
(2) Fluorescence Activated Sensing Technology; and
(3) Multipurpose biodefense immunoarrays
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
61384BP for the chemical/biological defense basic research
initiative.
Chemical/biological defense applied research and advanced
technology development initiatives
The committee recommends that technologies to be considered
for funding under the applied research and advanced technology
development initiatives include, but are not limited to the
following:
(1) Improved prophylaxis against neurotoxin effects;
(2) Novel vaccine platform development;
(3) Novel vaccine/therapeutic delivery means;
(4) Advanced concepts in regenerative air filtration;
(5) Wide-area detection and warning systems;
(6) Broad specificity enzyme-based destruction of
agents;
(7) Sensor placement/optimization for next generation
battle space management; and
(8) Rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE
62384BP to continue the chemical/biological defense applied
research initiative, an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63384BP
to continue the chemical/biological defense advanced technology
development initiative.
Chemical/biological defense advanced component development
and prototyping initiative
During its review of the fiscal year 2006 budget request
the committee noted that the budget request for the total
chemical and biological defense research and development
program increased $183.1 million compared to the amount
provided in fiscal year 2005, but also noted that the amount
requested for advanced component development and prototypes
decreased by $24.9 million. The committee notes that activities
supported by this budget category are critical to the
transition of promising technologies from the science and
technology base into development and that additional funding is
required to meet the validated objectives of the chemical
biological defense program in the areas of:
(1) Medical surveillance concepts and prototypes;
(2) Wide-area surveillance, cueing, detection and
warning;
(3) Broad-spectrum therapeutics; and
(4) Broad spectrum detection capabilities.
Consequently, the committee recommends $125.8 million in PE
63884BP, an increase of $25.0 million for the advanced
component development and prototyping initiative.
Combating terrorism technology support
The budget request contained $55.3 million in PE 63122D8Z
for combating terrorism technology support advanced technology
development.
The combating terrorism technology support program develops
technology and prototype equipment that addresses needs and
requirements with direct operational application in the
national effort to combat terrorism. The program addresses
defense, interagency, and international requirements for
combating terrorism technology. Projects support anti-
terrorism, counter-terrorism, intelligence and terrorism
consequence management activities to: conduct tactical
operations; protect military forces, civilian personnel,
installations, infrastructure elements and the general
population from terrorist attack; detect, neutralize, and
mitigate the effect of conventional and unconventional devices;
conduct surveillance and tracking of terrorists; conduct threat
and incident assessments; and process and disseminate
information. As a part of the program, international allies
have worked jointly with the United States to fund a variety of
key technologies that provide the U.S. armed forces, law
enforcement agencies, and first responders with key enabling
tools to counter terrorism.
The committee notes and highly commends the contributions
made by the Technical Support Working Group in the development,
demonstration, and fielding of advanced technologies for the
fight against terrorism.
The committee recommends $80.3 million in PE 63122D8Z, an
increase of $25.0 million for the combating terrorism
technology support program to develop and field critical
operational capabilities to counter and protect against
terrorist chemical, biological, and explosive threats against
military and civilian targets.
Connectory for rapid identification of advanced technology
The budget request contained $22.4 million in PE 63712S for
generic logistics research and development technology
demonstrations, but included no funding for continuation of the
connectory project.
The objective of the connectory project is to develop a
capability for the rapid identification of technology sources
for the Department of Defense (DOD) that would provide the
Department with instant access to the industrial base, and
permit the rapid identification of promising sources of new,
creative technical solutions for current combat and anti-
terrorism programs. The committee notes the progress in the
program and plans for developing methods for screening
manufacturers and their products and linking these sources to
DOD buyers and prime contractors, forming business networks to
potentially lower the cost of procurement, and analyzing
industries in a region to identify the location of emerging
technology clusters.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63712S for continuation of the connectory project for rapid
identification of technology resources.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has
been a leader and innovator in basic scientific research and
defense science and technology for decades. Originally
chartered to prevent technological surprise, DARPA promotes
revolutionary technology innovations by focusing on high-risk,
high-payoff technologies that offer new military capabilities
and complement the military departments' nearer-term science
and technology programs. The committee has supported ever
increasing funding for DARPA as the only agency not tied to a
military service mission and the demands of a service budget to
produce quick results. Recognizing that some of DARPA's high-
risk programs may not be successful, the committee encourages
DARPA to continue its focus on the development, demonstration,
and transition of high-risk, high-payoff technology to the
military departments and to U.S. industry.
At the same time, the committee recognizes that the pursuit
of the more futuristic technologies must be tempered by the
hard fact that we are a nation at war and our armed forces have
immediate needs for innovative technical solutions across a
variety of disciplines. The committee commends DARPA on its
quick reaction support and fielding of advanced innovative
technologies to meet emerging critical operational needs of our
forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and elsewhere in support of
the global war on terrorism.
The committee believes DARPA should continue to redirect
some of its more futuristic efforts to the solution of today's
combat problems. Those immediate needs involving detection,
sensing, protection, surveillance, and a host of other issues
that may well be ``DARPA hard'' problems that the Agency should
be examining, rather than some of the more futuristic efforts
in the DARPA program. Therefore, although the committee is
pleased with the overall progress in the defense science and
technology program, the committee believes that increased
priority must continue to be given to the nearer-term
requirements of the combatant commanders and U.S. armed forces
in the field.
Defense integrated military human resources system
The budget request contained $20.3 million in PE 65018SE
for research, testing, development, and evaluation of the
defense integrated military human resources system (DIMHRS).
The committee notes this is an ambitious program that entails
the development and implementation of a single personnel and
pay system that will support all military personnel, active,
guard, reserve, and retired. This program seeks to transform
the military personnel and pay processes.
While the committee supports the concept of a single
integrated pay and personnel system, the committee remains
highly concerned that this program will not deliver such
promised capabilities. The Department of the Air Force
testified that DIMHRS will only be a 60 percent solution for
its pay and personnel requirements; and the United States
Marine Corps testified that DIMHRS is a degraded capability
from its current pay and personnel system. The Department of
the Army, which will be first to receive DIMHRS, has not
clearly inventoried its legacy pay and personnel systems to
determine which ones will be terminated or will migrate to
DIMHRS.
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 15, 2006, a strategy to address
the four military services' concerns that DIMHRS will not be a
100 percent solution for its service-specific requirements.
This plan will address how DIMHRS will accommodate these
deficiencies, for example, interface standards for legacy
systems and or plans to augment DIHMRS capabilities to satisfy
these service specific requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $10.3 million for PE
65018SE, a decrease of $10.0 million for the research, testing,
development, and evaluation of DIMHRS.
Defense manufacturing technology
The budget request included no funds in PE 78011D8Z for the
defense manufacturing technology program.
The committee notes that the manufacturing technology
(ManTech) program in the Department of Defense (DOD) is a
critical funding vehicle for advancing and enabling the
fielding of new technologies to the warfighter. The ManTech
program supports the development of key manufacturing processes
that target throughput rates, affordability, process-driven
product performance, and the ability to sustain a hardware item
in some form of rate production over its lifecycle.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
78011D8Z for the defense manufacturing technology program.
Defense message system
The budget request contained $13.4 million for PE 33129K
for research, development, testing and evaluation for the
defense message system (DMS). This program is one of the
warfighters' message systems, by providing secure and
accountable messaging services.
The committee notes that DMS was initially created to
satisfy a Department of Defense (DOD) requirement for a secure
message system to replace the aging and archaic Automated
Defense Information (AUTODIN) system. At the inception of this
program, email use was widespread, and the Defense Information
Systems Agency (DISA) proposed satisfying this requirement with
an email system encrypted with a public key infrastructure
(PKI) system, as is done by commercial industry and other
government agencies. However, the intelligence community
rejected the DISA proposal citing security issues. To address
these concerns, DISA generated an elaborate, expensive proposal
to modify an existing email system, to include theprocurement
of other hardware and software to support it. The committee notes that
Department has spent more than $9.0 billion to implement DMS and to
keep AUTODIN operational. However, the intelligence community,
continues to cite security issues and does not use DMS.
Additionally, the committee questions the continued
development of this program when the Department is providing
duplicative capabilities with Internet Protocol version 6,
standard Microsoft Outlook, and PKI systems to its users.
Therefore, the committee recommends no funds in PE 33129K,
a decrease of $13.4 million for research, development, testing,
and evaluation of DMS.
Defense science and technology funding
The budget request contained $10.5 billion for the
Department of Defense science and technology program, including
all defense-wide and military service funding for basic
research, applied research, and advanced technology
development. The request included $1.7 billion for the Army,
$1.8 billion for the Navy, $1.9 billion for the Air Force, and
$5.0 billion for Defense-Wide science and technology (including
$3.1 billion for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA)). The committee recommends $11.4 billion for the
Department of Defense science and technology program, an
increase of $901.6 million to the budget request. The
committee's recommendation includes $2.2 billion for the Army
(an increase of $477.3 million), $2.0 billion for the Navy (an
increase of $189.4 million), $2.1 billion for the Air Force (an
increase of $118.5 million), and $5.1 billion for Defense
Agency science and technology, an increase of $116.4 million
(including $3.1 billion for DARPA, an increase of $11.4
million).
The committee regards defense science and technology
investments as critical to maintaining U.S. military
technological superiority in the face of growing and changing
threats to U.S. national security interests around the world.
The budget request is $2.2 billion (or 24 percent) less than
the $13.1 billion provided for fiscal year 2005 and is
approximately $28.0 million less than the fiscal year 2005
request ($240.0 million less when adjusted for inflation). The
committee notes that the budget request is 2.5 percent of the
total defense budget request (compared to 2.6 percent of the
request in fiscal year 2005) and does not meet the goal of 3
percent established by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review.
The past year has provided numerous examples of successful
technology development and deployment. The men and women of the
U.S. armed forces are better equipped, trained, and protected
because of revolutionary breakthroughs emerging from the
technology base. The committee commends the Department for the
response of the defense science and technology base to the
emerging critical operational needs in support of the global
war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Elsewhere in this
report the committee has recommended increased funding to
further accelerate the transition of advanced technologies.
The committee notes that earlier this year the National
Research Council of the National Academies of Science and
Engineering released its congressionally directed report
``Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research.'' The
report concluded that the Department is managing its basic
research program effectively, but made a number of
recommendations regarding the program. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress with the
Fiscal Year 2007 budget request the actions being taken or
recommended by the Department to implement the recommendations
contained in the report.
The committee is deeply concerned about sustaining and
maintaining DOD science and technology infrastructure, about
the projected loss to the defense science and engineering work
force over the next ten years of an estimated 13,000
scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technicians, and
about the actions necessary to enable the Department to recruit
and maintain a skilled and trained defense science and
engineering work force. In the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), Congress established a pilot program ``Science,
Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART)'' within
the Department to provide targeted education assistance to
individual seeking a baccalaureate or an advanced degree in
science and engineering disciplines that are critical to
national security. Elsewhere in this report, the committee has
recommended a provision which will build on the SMART program
and improve DOD's ability to recruit, develop, and retain
individuals critical to fulfilling the Department's national
security mission.
Despite the positive aspects of DOD's science and
technology program, the committee is concerned about long-term
projections for reductions in DOD science and technology as a
percentage of total obligation authority, and in short-term
trends in the science and technology accounts of some of the
military departments and defense agencies. The committee cannot
emphasize too strongly the need for the Department to maintain
a strong and robustly funded science and technology program
that will provide the advanced technologies needed to assure
technical dominance of our armed forces on any current or
future battlefield.
Defense technical information center
The budget request contained $50.0 million in PE 65801KA
for the Defense technical information center (DTIC).
The center's mission is to provide a timely and effective
exchange of scientific and technical information (STI) and
research and engineering information, to improve the quality
and resource effectiveness of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
research. The committee notes that DTIC provides centralized
acquisition, processing, storage, retrieval, and dissemination
of STI, including information that is restricted, controlled
and classified. In addition, DTIC's knowledge management and
leading edge information technology applications seek to
improve information services and STI transfer to benefit DOD's
warfighters, scientists, engineers, and managers. While the
committee understands that DTIC processes and disseminates STI
and performs studies and analysis, the committee is concerned
that DTIC's request increased almost 20 percent from fiscal
year 2005 without clearly identifying what the requirements are
for the increased funding request, even after several attempts
by the committee to ascertain the rationale.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $42.4 million in PE
65801KA, a decrease of $7.6 million for DTIC research and
development.
Emerging/critical interconnection technology
The budget request contained $22.4 million in PE 63712S for
generic logistics research and development technology
demonstrations.
The committee notes that printed circuit boards are
fundamental components of military navigation, guidance and
control, electronic warfare, missile, and surveillance and
communications equipment. The committee notes that 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. The committee also notes
that 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 U.S. capability for
development and production of high density, highly reliable
printed circuit boards for use in U.S. military systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE
63712S to continue the program for development of emerging and
critical printed circuit interconnection technology.
Event management visualization and data analysis
The budget request contained $163.6 million in PE 63750D8Z
for advanced concept technology demonstrations. The committee
understands that combatant commanders need automated tools that
streamline and de-conflict data input from multiple sources. In
addition, the commanders also have a requirement to consolidate
information into an efficient and effective display of
situational awareness, in support of adaptive planning and
incident management.
The Event Management Framework (EMF) improves the process
of data correlation from multiple sources to build a
consolidated view that provides actionable information in a
fast, cost effective and accurate manner. EMF correlates
multiple factors for event reasoning purposes, provides
customized displays to multiple end users, and enhances the
decision making process. This program incorporates techniques
to use a rules-based methodology to improve communication and
coordination among agencies, commands, and coalition forces by
relaying information while protecting sensitive data.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million in PE 63750D8Z for the development of EMF.
Force transformation
The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65799D8Z
for force transformation, but contained no funds for the Full
Spectrum Effects Platform, Project Sheriff.
Project Sheriff is an Office of Force Transformation
initiative to rapidly field for operational experimentation
transformational concepts such as target discrimination, speed
of light weapons, fused sensors, and cognitive computing
working in concert with active protection to produce weapons
effects capabilities scalable from non-lethal to lethal. The
committee believes Project Sheriff will significantly expand a
tactical commander's options and should be rapidly developed
for fielding.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
PE 65799D8Z for force transformation, Project Sheriff.
GeoSAR mission enhancements
The committee understands that GeoSAR is a revolutionary
mapping system that directly supports the National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency's need for sophisticated mapping products.
The committee also understands that GeoSAR products can meet
combatant commander needs for geospatial mapping.
The committee provides $4.0 million for GeoSAR mission
enhancements as follows: $2.1 million for field-deployable
processing for rapid response and $1.9 million for radar system
upgrades to support both mapping and intelligence requirements.
Guardrail Common Sensor
The budget request contained no funding in PE 35885G for
Guardrail Common Sensor (GRCS) support for on-board sensors
equipment.
The committee is very concerned with the degraded
operational status of the GRCS program. The program contains no
specific defense cryptologic funds for the continual upgrade
and modification of sensors to exploit evolving signals
intelligence (SIGINT) requirements. The global war on terrorism
has proven that the SIGINT threat has evolved beyond most of
the GRCS collection and exploitation capabilities. The fiscal
year 2005 supplemental addressed some of this problem by
providing additional funding for the rapid insertion of quick
reaction capabilities but only as clip-in suites, and not part
for the baseline funding profile for all GRCS operational
systems. The committee believes that it is imperative that all
four GRCS systems be upgraded to a common software-
reprogramable baseline to allow the GRCS systems to meet the
current threats, immediately and dynamically.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
35885G for the SIGINT common configuration baseline for the
GRCS.
Information assurance
The committee believes the Department of Defense (DOD)
should do more to implement effective tamper resistant software
capabilities on critical components and technologies. The
committee continues to believe the Department must ensure a
comprehensive anti-tamper policy to employ defenses against a
variety of sophisticated threats. Such threats could
potentially threaten our nation's strategic advantage and
weaken the industrial base's technological competitiveness in
the international marketplace.
The committee notes that the conference report (H. Rept.
108-354) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) directed the
Secretary of Defense to assess the utility of tamper-resistant
security software and other innovative software security tools
in protecting critical DOD command, control, communications and
intelligence software and incorporate such protections, as
appropriate, into the Department's information assurance
programs. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary to
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2005, the results
of that assessment and the protective measures implemented into
the Department's information assurance programs as a
consequence of that review.
Information Systems Security Program
The budget request contained $462.2 million in PE 33140G
for the Information Systems Security Program.
The committee understands the importance of video
intelligence in providing critical situational awareness to the
warfighter on the battlefield. The committee understands the
value of the digital video products provided by the Pacific
Wind video system.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
33140G for Pacific Wind as follows: $1.5 million to upgrade the
video compression standard to enable high-definition images and
$2.5 million to make the system two-way (full-duplex) capable.
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. This funding may
also 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.
Large vehicle inspection using magnetic quadrupole resonance
The budget request contained $55.3 million in PE 63122D8Z
for Combating Terrorism Technology Support.
The committee notes the development, demonstration, and
employment of scanning explosives detection systems that use
nuclear magnetic quadrupole resonance technology to detect the
presence of explosives with a greatly enhanced detection
probability and reduced false alarm rate.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63122D8Z to accelerate the development and evaluation of
magnetic quadrupole resonance technology for the screening of
cargo and large vehicles for the presence of explosives. The
committee understands that this funding will support the
completion of the final phase of the program.
M-291 skin decontamination kits
The committee is concerned about the availability of M-219
skin decontamination kits for the Department of Defense. The M-
291 is the only Food and Drug Administration approved, standard
individual issue skin decontamination kit fielded by the U.S.
armed forces. The kit protects and decontaminates skin from all
known nerve and blister agents without harm to the skin.
Currently, the U.S. Army maintains a limited production
capability to manufacture M-291 kits for the Department. The
committee understands that infrequent and low volume
requirements have resulted in long lead times and inefficient
production costs. The committee also understands that the M-291
kit is in demand by city and state governments, first
responders, emergency personnel, and the Department of Homeland
Security.
The committee encourages the U.S. Army to increase the M-
291 kit production rate to a more cost-effective level. The
increased manufacturing rate would also allow an increase in
the number of M-291 kits that could be made available for
purchase by the various Homeland Security activities.
Man portable air defense system defense program
The budget request included $13.3 million in PE 64618D8Z
for systems development and demonstration (SDD) to develop and
demonstrate low cost, rapidly fieldable infra-red
countermeasures (IRCM) options and $10.4 million in procurement
to ``examine new techniques'' to reduce the cost and lead time
required to protect aircraft against the man portable air
defense system (MANPADS) threat at ``expeditionary airfields
and urban areas.''
The following points need to be considered:
(1) SDD programs require validated requirements and
mature technologies that have been demonstrated in at
least a laboratory or test range environment. There are
no validated requirements for this program, nor have
any technologies been demonstrated;
(2) The concept for this program was considered by
the Department of Homeland Security for its on-going
program to protect civilian aircraft from the MANPADS
threat and was rejected. Consequently, this program
would be unique to the military services;
(3) Entry into SDD requires an independent program
cost estimate. No such cost estimate exists; and
(4) The committee believes the Secretary of Defense
should not be managing programs that are inherently
within the purview of the military services.
In addition to the fact this is a science and technology
program in content and scope of work and not an SDD program,
the committee remains concerned that the concept for this
program remains seriously flawed. At this point it has not been
determined whether the concept requires surface to air missiles
to be detected and engaged in very short time-lines from the
ground or whether the deployed system would alert the presumed
target aircraft to a MANPADS firing, requiring the target
aircraft to dispense on-board countermeasures. Given the
detection, decision, engagement times involved, engagement
geometry, and having to fire surface to air missiles or high
powered lasers at a threat missile is problematical, perhaps
fratricidal. Further, a similar, but far less complex problem
of detecting and engaging rockets, artillery, and mortars has
been examined and the per system cost is well over $200.0
million--20 times what is being discussed by program officials
as an estimated cost.
Finally, the Secretary of Defense needs to examine the
policy and budget implications of deploying systems to
expeditionary airfields to protect against the MANPADS threat
while leaving U.S. airfields totally unprotected.
Accordingly, the committee authorizes $6.0 million in PE
63618D8Z, a new science and technology program element, and
directs within the funds authorized that an independent
evaluation be completed of the concept of operations and on the
cost of the proposed system solution. Further, the committee
authorizes no funds for procurement due to the lack of
supporting justification.
Medical free electron laser
The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 62234D8Z
for medical free electron laser applied research.
The committee notes that the medical free electron laser
program seeks to develop advanced, laser-based applications for
military medicine and related materials research. Because free
electron lasers provide unique pulse features and tunable
wavelength characteristics that are unavailable in other laser
devices, their use broadens the experimental options for the
development of new laser-based medical technologies. The
program is a merit-based, peer-reviewed, competitively awarded
research program, the majority of which is focused on
developing advanced procedures for rapid diagnosis and
treatment of battlefield related medical problems.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
62234D8Z, to continue the merit-based, peer-reviewed,
competitively awarded program in medical free electron laser
applied research.
National Defense University technology pilot program
The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 65104D8Z
for the Office of Secretary of Defense technical studies,
support, and analysis.
In fiscal year 2002 at the request of the President,
National Defense University (NDU), Congress added funds to
enable the university to establish a pilot research and
analysis program that would focus on defense policy issues that
have significant technology elements. The objective of the
program is to determine how the United States can maintain its
competitive edge against other military adversaries at a time
when commercial information technology (IT) is readily
available on the global market. The committee requests that the
NDU President and the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering report the results of the program and plans for
future efforts with the submission of the fiscal year 2007
budget request to Congress.
The committee recommends $32.1 million in PE 65104D8Z, an
increase of $1.0 million to continue the NDU technology pilot
program.
Operationally responsive space
The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65799D8Z
for operationally responsive space, but included no funds for
development of the common bus.
The committee believes the nation must develop a responsive
space capability and envisions that this capability may
transform the battlefield and the space community far more than
any other initiative. The committee believes a responsive space
capability must include a set of common launch vehicles, common
satellite standards, and flexible payloads that are engineered
for common interfaces. The committee recognizes that the
development of a common bus is the first critical step towards
a responsive space system; however, the committee is concerned
by the lack of coordination and focus on the development of
payloads for small satellites.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for
common bus development and an increase $50.0 million for small
satellite payload development in PE 65799D8Z. The committee
authorizes the funds for small satellite payload development to
be used as required by section 913 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
Project M shock mitigation technology
The committee notes the progress in the Office of Naval
Research's application of shock mitigation technology,
initially developed under the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency's (DARPA) Project M program, to mitigation of
the shock experienced by high-speed boats operating in littoral
waters. The focus of the program has been to develop semi-
active and fully-active shock mitigating seats to reduce the
high shock and vibration experienced by the Navy SEALS Mark V
patrol craft crew and passengers in high-speed special
operations. The program has also been exploring the use of a
Look-Ahead Detection System which observes the approaching
ocean surface and sends warnings to the seat to enable shock-
compensating motion before the shock impacts the hull. The
results of at-sea tests show significant promise for mitigating
the shock experienced in the Mark V-B special operations craft
in sea conditions ranging from mid-Sea State 3 to low-Sea State
4 at speeds of 30 to 48 knots.
The committee encourages the Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command to review the results of the testing on the
shock-mitigating seats for possible application to the Mark V
patrol craft and consideration by the Director, DARPA, of the
application of the Project M technology to DARPA's new program
for development of a high-speed assault craft.
Raincoat
The budget request contained $22.0 million in PE 35885G for
tactical signal intelligence technology, but contained no
funding for Project Raincoat at the National Security Agency
(NSA).
The NSA's Project Raincoat provides new surveillance
tracking and reasoning assessment technology that will assist
in the detection, identification, and monitoring of signals
intelligence. The project uses a behavioral science approach,
and link analysis founded on analytic operator experience to
cue sensors automatically to pre-identified signals activity.
The result alerts operators when a correlation is established,
and effectively increases operator efficiency through a
targeted search strategy in the platform's receivers.
Therefore, the committee recommends $26.0 million in PE
35885G, an increase of $4.0 million for Project Raincoat.
Rapid acquisition incentives
The budget request contained $5.6 million in PE 33169D8Z
for the information technology (IT) Rapid Acquisition
Incentives (RAI) program.
This program is intended to provide funding for pilot
initiatives that will support the Department of Defense's
efforts to transition to a network-centric environment. The
committee notes that while this program's goal to deliver
practical business case-based operational solutions is
admirable, the committee is not supportive of authorizing
funding for IT programs which have not been specifically
targeted. The committee is concerned that RAI does not outline
which activities or projects will be financed, establish the
requirements, or what capabilities are promised, and how such
capabilities will be fielded.
Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding in PE
33169D8Z, a decrease of $5.6 million for the development of the
RAI program.
Scalable active memory processing engines
The budget request contained $242.7 million in PE 62716E
for applied research in electronics technology.
The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency's polymorphous computing architectures program
is developing a revolutionary approach to the implementation of
embedded computing systems to support reactive multi-mission,
multi-sensor, and in-flight retargetable missions. This
revolutionary approach will also significantly reduce the
payload adaptation, optimization, and verification process.
The committee notes that massively parallel processing
technologies being developed under the Scalable Active Memory
Processing Engines program will provide significantly enhanced
on-board sensor processing capabilities in an accelerated
timeframe and significantly improve front-end processing for
ballistic missile defense radars, as well as on-board missile
discrimination processing.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.4 million in PE
62716E to accelerate the development of scalable, low-power,
ultra-high performance processors for ballistic missile defense
and other applications.
Special operations advanced technology development
The budget request contained $104.3 million in PE 116402BB
for special operations advanced technology development, but
contained no funds for the surveillance augmentation vehicle-
insertable on request (SAVIOR) system.
The SAVIOR system promises to increase force protection for
troops operating in cluttered, urban environments. SAVIOR is a
mobile, intelligent sensor suite that can alert ground forces
to the presence of a threat with its intensive surveillance
network.
The committee recommends $107.8 million for PE 116402BB,
special operations advanced technology development, an increase
of $3.5 million for development of the SAVIOR system.
Special Operations Command small weapons acquisition
The committee believes that the unique acquisition
authority possessed by the U.S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) is a key element of the command's ability to respond
effectively to common special operating forces operator needs
and to address rapidly emerging requirements. Even so, major
acquisition programs must be managed with a due regard to
competition, unless the need for a quick solution is paramount.
In that regard, the SOCOM program to acquire a combat assault
rifle to replace six different weapons is on track to be a
success. The committee expects that the same success will be
demonstrated by the ongoing combat pistol acquisition program.
The committee believes that operator needs should drive the
requirements process, but also believes that the combination of
the weapon requirements and product delivery schedule must not
be so narrow as to restrict the command to a single source
solution except under extraordinary circumstances.
The committee is also aware of another emerging requirement
that should be explored. The committee understands that high
technology, extreme long-range sniper systems are being
commercially developed that could provide special forces
operators with a quantum leap in sniper capability over today's
fielded systems. The committee understands that special forces
snipers have tested these systems and believe they may be
superior to the weapons they now employ. The committee urges
the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command to review these
U.S. developed technologies and consider acquiring these
systems for special forces operators.
Special Operations Command tactical tanker fleet
The committee is concerned about the long-term viability of
the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) C-130 tactical
tanker fleet, given persistent center wing box problems and the
proposed cancellation of the C-130J modernization program. The
small size of the SOCOM fleet, combined with heavy, on-going
operational demands, make taking aircraft out of service for
extensive center wing box and avionics upgrades problematic.
The committee supports the command's ongoing C-130 fleet
modernization program but is concerned that these upgrades are
relatively short-term fixes that do not address the long-term
need for newer, modern aircraft. The committee believes that
SOCOM tactical tanker requirements should be considered as part
of the overall C-130J program assessment conducted by direction
of the committee elsewhere in this report as part of the
Mobility Capability Study and Quadrennial Defense Review.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
consider SOCOM tactical tanker requirements in the final
decision on the C-130J procurement and to submit a report to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services with the Department of Defense's plan for the
modernization of the SOCOM C-130 tanker fleet through 2022 by
February 15, 2006.
Special operations tactical systems development
The budget request contained $63.5 million in PE 116404BB
for special operations tactical systems development, but
contained no funds for further development of the special
operating forces combat assault rifle (SCAR) and no funds for
the multi-role, anti-armor, anti-personnel weapons system
(MAAWS) multi-target warhead.
The committee believes that the SCAR is an urgently needed
replacement for the existing M-4 system that should be field
tested and refined as quickly as possible for special forces
operator employment.
The MAAWS multi-target warhead is a unique 84 millimeter
round with 2 warheads that will fire from existing weapons
designed to defeat threat forces protected by hardened
barriers. The committee notes that this item is on the unfunded
priority list of the Commander, Special Operations Command.
The committee recommends $78.8 million for PE 116404BB
special operations tactical systems development, an increase of
$8.5 million to further develop the SCAR and an increase of
$6.8 million for the MAAWS multi-target warhead.
Special operations technology development
The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 116401BB
for special operations technology development, but contained no
funds for the Angel Fire for Full Spectrum Close-In Layered
Shield (FCLAS) system.
The Angel Fire for FCLAS active protection system is a
promising integrated sensor and counter-measure package with
the potential to provide increased protection to lightly
protected military aircraft and vehicles in hostile
environments. Such systems are urgently needed in today's
increasingly lethal operating environments.
The committee recommends $23.6 million for PE 116401BB
special operations technology development, an increase of $10.0
million for the Angel Fire for FCLAS system.
Tactical exploitation of innovative sensors
The committee strongly supports the joint experimental
aviation activity established between Naval Air Systems
(NAVAIR) and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA)
for the tactical exploitation of innovative sensors. The
committee understands the partnership promises to improve and
accelerate the development and fielding of transformational
capabilities to both NGA and the Department of the Navy by
leveraging and integrating manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft,
lighter than air vehicles, and ground systems. The committee
strongly supports the emphasis to improve tasking, collection,
processing, exploitation, and dissemination activities within
the broad framework of the national intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance community. The committee recommends an
increase of $15.0 million in PE 35102BQ for sensor development
and flight operations in support of the NGA-NAVAIR Experimental
Aviation Activity.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $168.5 million for Operational
Test and Evaluation, Defense.
The committee recommends $168.5 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 2006.
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 2006.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Annual Comptroller General Report on Future Combat Systems
Program
This section would establish an annual review of the Future
Combat Systems program by the Comptroller General to be
submitted to Congress by March 15, of each year. The report
would include the extent to which such systems development and
demonstration (SDD) program is meeting established performance,
cost, and schedule goals; the plan for such SDD for the next
fiscal year; and a conclusion whether such SDD program is
likely to be completed at a cost not in excess of the most
recent Selected Acquisition Report. The final report required
by this section would be submitted at the completion of the
systems development and demonstration milestone.
Section 212--Objective Requirements for Non-line-of-sight Cannon System
not to be Diminished to Meet Weight Requirements
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the objective requirements established for the Non-
Light-of-Sight Cannon not be diminished in order to achieve the
weight requirements in existence as of April 14, 2003.
Section 213--Independent Analysis of Future Combat Systems Manned
Ground Vehicle Transportability Requirement
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
complete an independent analysis and submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2006 on the
Future Combat Systems key performance parameter
transportability requirement for the manned ground vehicles
(MGV). The analysis would seek to determine whether:
(1) Such a requirement can be supported by the
projected extended planning period, inter- and intra-
theater airlift force structure and is justified by any
likely deployment scenario envisioned by current
operational plans;
(2) Mature technologies have been demonstrated that
allow this requirement to be met while demonstrating at
least equal lethality and survivability of the current
manned vehicles or their equivalent, intended to be
replaced; and
(3) The projected unit procurement cost warrants the
investment required to deploy these vehicles.
The committee is concerned that the transportability
performance requirement is inconsistent with the maturity of
relevant technologies and projected airlift mobility
capabilities, compromises lethality and survivability, and
unnecessarily costly for the projected benefit. The current MGV
weight exceeds by over 25 percent of that required to meet the
MGV objective.
Section 214--Amounts for Armored Systems Modernization Program
This section would prescribe the fiscal year 2006
authorization and budget activity for the specific projects
requested in the Armored Systems Modernization Program.
Section 215--Limitation on Systems Development and Demonstration of
Manned Ground Vehicles Under Armored Systems Modernization Program
This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized for
appropriation to be obligated for systems development and
demonstration of manned ground vehicles for the armored systems
modernization program until mature technologies have been
demonstrated in a relevant environment to provide at least
equaled lethality and survivability compared with the manned
ground vehicles intended to be replaced by such ground
vehicles.
Section 216--Testing of Internet Protocol Version 6 by the Naval
Research Laboratory
This section would amend section 331 of the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
(Public Law 108-375) to require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct the testing and evaluation of internet protocol version
six required by that section through the Naval Research
Laboratory. This section would also require that the Secretary
submit an annual report on the testing and evaluation to the
congressional defense committees for fiscal years 2006 through
2008.
Section 217--Program to Design and Develop Next-Generation Nuclear
Submarine
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
carry out a program to design and develop a class of nuclear
submarines that will serve as a successor to the Virginia class
of nuclear submarines. This section would require the Secretary
to commence design of the next generation nuclear submarine to
follow the Virginia class, beginning construction in about
fiscal year 2014.
The committee is aware that for the first time in 50 years,
the Navy does not have a program to develop a nuclear
submarine. Nuclear submarines, beginning with the Nautilus,
have provided un-matched, important capabilities for this
nation, and were instrumental in winning the Cold War.
In the last five decades the United States has developed an
unequaled capability to design, develop and manufacture the
world's top nuclear submarines. However, the committee is aware
that this unique capability to design nuclear submarines is
perishable. The recent example of the United Kingdom's problems
with its new Astute class nuclear submarine is a clear
indication of what happens when the submarine design capability
is not maintained.
The committee understands that the only means by which the
United States can expect to maintain its design capability is
to continue to employ those designers to develop new submarine
designs.
The committee is aware that existing submarine designs have
emphasized open ocean capabilities. While the Virginia,
Seawolf, and Los Angeles classes all operate effectively in the
littoral, they were optimized for the open ocean. The committee
believes that for the foreseeable future, the littoral rather
than open ocean is the area of greatest importance. The
committee sees an opportunity to maintain nuclear submarine
design expertise developing a new class of nuclear submarine
optimized for the littoral. This design shall make maximum use
of emerging technologies, including those spawned by the joint
Navy-Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Tango
Bravo project to develop a design optimized for littoral
operations that dramatically reduces submarine cost while
providing applicable warfighting capability equal to or greater
than the Virginia class.
Section 218--Extension of Requirements Relating to Management
Responsibility for Naval Mine Countermeasures Program
This section would extend to 2011 the requirement
established in section 216 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law
102-190), as most recently amended by section 212 of the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
(Public Law 104-314), that the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff annually certify the
adequacy of the Navy's mine countermeasures program.
The section would require that the Secretary, in certifying
that the budget submitted to Congress and the Future Years
Defense Plan propose sufficient resources for executing the
updated mine countermeasures master plan, ensure that the
budget meets the requirements of section 2437 of title 10,
United States Code. Section 2437 provides that whenever a new
major defense acquisition program begins development a
sustainment plan shall be developed for the existing system
that would be replaced by the system under development and that
an appropriate level of budgeting be provided to sustain the
existing system until the replacement system is fielded and
assumes the major responsibility for the mission of the
existing program. The committee notes that in the U.S. Naval
Mine Countermeasures Plan for fiscal year 2006, the Navy plans
to begin decommissioning the MHC-51 class mine hunting ships,
based in part on assumptions regarding the fielding schedule
for the Littoral Combat Ship. The committee believes that the
Navy's assumption regarding the fielding schedule for Littoral
Combat Ship is premature.
The section would amend the requirement to notify Congress
prior to any reprogramming action relative to the Navy's mine
countermeasures program as long as the reprogramming action
does not affect certification of the program provided to
Congress by the Secretary of Defense.
The section would also require that the Secretary forward
to the congressional defense committees with the Secretary's
annual certification of the adequacy of the Navy's mine
countermeasures program a copy of the Navy's Mine
Countermeasures Plan which supports that certification.
Section 219--Single Joint Requirement for Heavy Lift Rotorcraft
The committee is aware that the Army and the Marine Corps
both need a future transport helicopter to replace existing
heavy lift rotorcraft. The committee also notes that costs for
Defense Department weapons systems, including rotorcraft,
continue to escalate making it imperative that the Department
take advantage of any and all means including reducing the
number of system development programs where it make sense to
contain costs. Additionally, the Department must take advantage
of economies of scale in production.
Present world-wide operations have demonstrated that the
future for ground forces is joint operations with the Army and
the Marine Corps. A key ingredient in these operations is
systems interoperability. One way to not only contain costs but
also facilitate interoperability is to, where possible; develop
joint systems for the Army and the Marine Corps. While in the
past there may have been a desire on the part of both services
to differentiate by using different equipment, this is no
longer a valid fundamental consideration. The committee is
aware that present timelines for heavy lift rotorcraft
replacement are not the same for the Army and the Marine Corps.
Recognizing this, the committee believes that it is possible to
establish a competitive program based on a single joint
requirement that phases rotorcraft delivery in a manner to meet
both service schedules.
Currently, the Joint Heavy Lift Rotorcraft (JHL) program is
``joint'' in name only and is only intended to be the
Department of the Army's next-generation heavy lift rotorcraft
to replace the Army's CH-47 ``Chinook.'' The Marine Corps has
its own program, the Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR), intended to
replace the CH-53 ``Super Stallion.'' The budget request
includes $272.0 million in PE 65212N for systems development
and demonstration for this program. The committee strongly
believes that the foundation on which the JHL must proceed to
development and production is a single, joint requirement,
validated and approved by the Secretary of Defense. While it
may not be possible for each service to include precisely the
capability it desires, it must be possible to agree on the
essential capabilities to be included in JHL and at the same
time draft a requirement that does not in and of itself force a
particular technology solution.
In the past issues such as corrosion control requirements,
range, lift capability and ship basing have been used to
justify separate programs. However, it is clear that in the
future both the Army and the Marine Corps will operate from and
be transported by ship and therefore, require the same level of
corrosion control, be subject to other considerations mandated
by ship based operations, and need be capable of similar long
ranges.
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy and
the Secretary of the Army to develop a single, common JHL
requirement for approval by the Joint Requirement Oversight
Council and the Secretary of Defense. This section would
further direct that the Secretary of Defense not authorize the
JHL program to begin until a validated and approved joint
requirement exists. It is imperative that a common set of
requirements be established in the immediate future to preclude
unnecessary delays in upgrading the military services heavy
lift capability.
Section 220--Requirements for Development of Tactical Radio
Communications Systems
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
provide a comprehensive report that would:
(1) Assess the Department of Defense's (DOD)
immediate requirements for tactical radio
communications, and whether these requirements may be
satisfied with the purchase of legacy radios;
(2) Ensure that DOD users may rapidly acquire
tactical radio communications utilizing existing
technologies or mature systems readily available in the
commercial marketplace; and
(3) Apply DOD Instruction 5000.2 to JTRS in a manner
that does not permit the Milestone B entrance
requirements to be waived.
This section would also give the Joint Program Executive
Officer (JPEO) for the Joint Tactical Radio System program the
authority and control of execution year research and
development funding for all the clusters and the waveform
developments for JTRS. The committee believes the JPEO must
have these authorities to successfully manage a program of this
size and cost. This section would also allow the JPEO to
transition technologies through Systems Development and
Demonstration and Production and Deployment (SDD) more quickly.
The committee strongly believes that interim radio
communication capabilities should be evolutionary and be able
to transition to the long-term system solution with maximum
hardware and software reuse.
The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program is a family
of interoperable, advanced software-defined radios. The
committee has serious concerns that Cluster 1 program, the
first and largest of several clusters has encountered
significant cost overruns, severe schedule delays, and
performance problems. The committee expects that the
Department's compliance with subsection (a)(2) of this section
will result in the elimination of the current JTRS waiver
process. This would allow the services to purchase tactical
radio communications to fulfill their immediate requirements.
The committee believes that given recent developments that
include the stop-work order and the show cause letter to the
contractor, the Secretary should thoroughly reevaluate and
assess the Department's requirements for tactical radio
communications, the JTRS program and its promised capabilities.
Section 221--Limitation on Systems Development and Demonstration of
Personnel Recovery Vehicle
The Air Force budget request included $113.8 million in PE
27224F, within the operational systems development budget
activity, for Combat Rescue and Recovery, all of which is for
systems development and demonstration of the Personnel Recovery
Vehicle (PRV).
This section would limit any obligation of funding for the
Personnel Recovery Vehicle until 30 days after the Secretary of
Defense:
(1) Certifies that the requirements and schedule for
the PRV have been validated and are reasonable and
necessary;
(2) Certifies that all technologies required to meet
the requirements are mature;
(3) Certifies that no other aircraft, and no other
modification of an aircraft in the Department of
Defense inventory can meet the PRV requirement; and
(4) Provides an independent cost and manpower
estimate for the PRV.
The committee also deletes all funding for operational
systems development in PE 27224F and places the requested
$113.8 million in systems development and demonstration, PE
64261F, Personnel Recovery Vehicle.
Section 222--Separate Program Element Required for Each Significant
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Project
In its annual budget requests for research, development,
test, and evaluation (RDT&E), the Department of Defense
continues to aggregate more and more projects within individual
program elements. In addition, the Department continues to
incorrectly apply its own directives in the classification of
its programs and projects by budget activity, for example,
Personnel Recovery Vehicle and Man Portable Air Defense System
Defense.
This section would require that any RDT&E project, whose
estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for that
project exceed $100.0 million, is assigned its own program
element.
Further, the committee continues to encourage the
Department to follow its own directives in the proper budget
activity classification of RDT&E programs.
Section 223--Small Business Innovation Research Phase III Acceleration
Pilot Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate the secretary of a military department to establish a
pilot program to transition at least 10 Phase II Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR) projects into Phase III annually.
The pilot would run for three years. Small businesses are our
nation's engine of technology innovation. The federal
government and the Department of Defense (DOD) spend
significant sums annually on Phase I and Phase II Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) technology development that
has yet to be fully transitioned into production (Phase III).
While the primary focus of the program is to fund Phase III in
the commercial marketplace, the committee recognizes that
Department has managed the SBIR program with the military
customer as the focus. The committee believes that too many
innovative technologies developed with DOD support and funding
are subsequently neglected because many DOD acquisition
programs are managed by large prime contractors with no
visibility into the SBIR program and the promising technologies
under development. While the committee is reluctant to direct
consideration of SBIR Phase II projects as Phase III projects
in subcontractual arrangements, the committee believes that a
more focused effort to transition promising technologies will
benefit both the warfighter and the taxpayer. The committee
urges the Secretary to designate the military department that
has demonstrated the greatest success in transitioning these
technologies, and to consider implementing a process to provide
incentives to defense contractors to subcontract to DOD SBIR
firms, in a manner similar to procedures used for minority,
women-owned, and veteran owned small businesses.
Section 224--Revised Requirements Relating to Submission of Joint
Warfighting Science and Technology Plan
This section would amend section 270 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201) to require submission of the Joint Warfighting Science and
Technology Plan required by that section biennially, rather
than annually. This section would also repeal the requirement
for the plan to contain review and assessment summaries.
Section 225--Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement Program for
Development of Innovative Shipbuilding Technologies, Processes, and
Facilities
This section would establish a Shipbuilding Industrial Base
Program for the U.S. shipbuilding industry to improve the
efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality of U.S. ship
construction, and promote the international competitiveness of
U.S. shipyards. Under this program, the Secretary of the Navy
may provide funds for the development of modernized
shipbuilding infrastructure and innovative design and
production technologies and processes for naval vessels. The
Secretary may also provide funds from this program to shipyards
for the acquisition of such infrastructure, technologies, and
processes. Participants of the program should have the ability
to develop infrastructure, technologies, and processes that are
beneficial to or needed by the shipbuilding industry based on
inefficiencies discovered in a periodic assessment of program
design, engineering, and production engineering; organization
and operating systems; steelwork production; and ship
construction and outfitting.
The committee is aware that a 2005 shipbuilding industrial
base study conducted by the Department of Defense identified
weaknesses in the naval ship construction program and
recommended a specific set of targeted investments to increase
efficiency and modernize the U.S. shipbuilding infrastructure,
including physical facilities, critical processes, specialized
labor pool, unique tools, and the associated systems and
processes. The committee is encouraged that the United States
Shipbuilders have embraced the National Shipbuilding Research
Program as an effective and efficient means to collaborate on
innovation in shipbuilding and ship repair. The committee
believes that the Department can take advantage of this
existing collaboration as an effective vehicle to address
shipyard productivity issues related primarily to naval ship
design practices.
The committee believes the Shipbuilding Industrial Base
Improvement Program established under this section would enable
infrastructure modernization of the U.S. shipbuilding industry
to include collaborative work by the nation's shipyards in
several key areas: design-for-production, ship design/
engineering processes, production engineering methodology,
enhanced supply chain integration, and organization and
operating system optimization associated with naval ship
construction programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in
PE 78730N only for the Shipbuilding Industrial Base Improvement
Program. A key aspect of the fiscal year 2006 recommended
authorization would be design optimization projects of several
ship classes--a mix of those classes in production as well as
new design classes--including a coordinated effort to collect
lessons learned across ship platforms and share productive
methods among the programs.
Section 226--Renewal of University National Oceanographic Laboratory
System Fleet
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
develop a plan for a program to construct ships for the
University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS)
Fleet and would require that the Secretary include in the plan
provisions for the construction of up to four Ocean class
ships. The section would also authorize $4.0 million in PE
63564N, Ship Preliminary Design and Feasibility Studies, to
conduct feasibility assessments and initiate design of the
first ship of the class.
Section 227--Limitation on VXX Helicopter Program
This section would limit the obligation of research,
development, test and evaluation funds, or procurement funds,
for acquisition of pilot production helicopters for the VXX
helicopter program until the Secretary of the Navy certifies to
the congressional defense committees that the results of the
tests conducted by the fleet of test article helicopters for
the VXX program demonstrate that VXX helicopters in the VXX
mission configuration can be produced without significant
further design modification.
The budget request contained $935.9 million in PE 64273N
for the VXX executive helicopter development program, including
funds for the first of three payments for five pilot production
helicopters. The VXX executive helicopter program is developing
a replacement for the VH-3D helicopter.
The committee notes that the VXX program schedule plans for
the concurrent development and production of both three test
articles and pilot production helicopters. While the committee
understands the need to develop and produce the VXX as rapidly
as possible, it further notes that the Department of Defense,
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation's Fiscal Year 2004
Annual Report includes remarks that the program's acquisition
strategy violates the ``fly before buy'' concept, and that risk
reduction and robust execution of a test-fix-fly program could
require additional schedule margin to ensure that an
appropriate amount of testing be accomplished before pilot
production vehicles are procured.
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs
Section 231--Report on Capability and Costs for Operational Boost/
Ascent-Phase Missile Defense Systems
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment of the missile defense programs,
particularly the Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptor,
which are designed to protect against boost/ascent-phase
ballistic missile attacks. This section would also require a
capability and cost assessment of each boost/ascent-phase
system.
The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2006, on the
results of this assessment.
Section 232--Required Flight-Intercept Test of Ballistic Missile
Defense Ground-based Midcourse System
The section would authorize $100.0 million above the budget
request for the midcourse defense segment, for one additional
flight-intercept test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
(GMD) system. This is in addition to the regularly planned
flight tests of the GMD system conducted by the Missile Defense
Agency, and the test shall be conducted as soon as practicable.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained approximately $108.0 billion
in operation and maintenance funds to ensure the U.S. military
can fight and meet the demands of 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. These
funds, however, will not be used to fund the global war on
terrorism (GWOT). The committee understands the administration
will request emergency supplemental funds for fiscal year 2006
to meet that requirement. Nevertheless, the committee believes
that costs directly associated with the GWOT are embedded in
the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The committee has
appropriately transferred these funds out of the committee's
recommended funding for fiscal year 2006 to the ``bridge''
supplemental fund found in title XV of this bill, where the
funds are authorized to be obligated for the GWOT expenses.
For the last two 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. What is surprising to the committee is not the
level of operation and maintenance funds needed, but rather the
need for significantly higher procurement funds. Because
equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan is not being returned
for maintenance and it is undergoing significant operational
tempo under harsh conditions, the services will not repair the
equipment, but replace it.
The necessity to leave equipment in theatre results in
troops at home station having limited equipment to train,
maintain, or attain necessary skills. The committee notes the
mission capability rates of equipment at home station is often
significantly lower than deployed equipment. This is of concern
to the committee. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense
and the service secretaries to identify any such shortfalls and
to request funding where needed.
Finally, the committee praises the performance and role of
the public depots and arsenals. The GWOT requirement on these
industrial facilities reminds the committee of their unique and
significant role in national security.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments--Readiness
The committee recommends the following adjustments to the
fiscal year 2006 amended budget request:
[In millions of dollars]
Department of the Army Adjustments:
BA 1 Advanced Technology Batteries....................... +2.5
BA 1 Arsenal/Depot AIT Initiative........................ +10.0
BA 1 Bio/Chem Resistant Canteens......................... +1.0
BA 1 Utilities Privatization............................. (15.0)
BA 1 M Gators............................................ +2.0
BA 1 Fleece Insulation-Extended Cold Weather Clothing.... +2.0
BA 1 Tank Sonic Dry Clean Filter System.................. +1.0
BA 3 Civilian Intern Program............................. (32.0)
Under Execution Civilian Personnel........................ (17.0)
Unobligated Balances...................................... (239.6)
BA 1 National Guard Extended Cold Weather Clothing System +7.0
BA 1 National Guard Advanced Solar Covers................ +3.5
BA 4 National Guard Citizen Soldier Support.............. +0.9
BA 4 Reserve Citizen Soldier Support Program............. +0.9
BA 1 Reserve Extended Cold Weather Clothing System....... +7.0
Department of the Navy Adjustments:
BA 1 Stainless Steel Sanitary Spaces..................... +4.0
BA 1 Man Overboard ID System............................. +4.0
BA 1 JFCOM Joint Training................................ (12.9)
BA 1 Utilities Privatization............................. (57.0)
BA 1 NULKA............................................... +2.0
BA 2 Ship Disposal....................................... +8.0
BA 4 Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan................ (16.0)
BA 4 Ford Island Environmental Clean-Up.................. +1.0
Under Execution Civilian Personnel........................ (172.0)
Unobligated Balances...................................... (191.6)
United States Marine Corps Adjustments:
BA 1 Hyper-Realistic MOUT Training....................... +2.0
BA 1 Bio/Chem Resistant Canteens......................... +1.0
BA 1 Mtn. Cold Weather Clothing and Equipment............ +6.0
BA 1 Advanced Technology Batteries....................... +2.5
BA 1 Reserve All Purpose Environmental Clothing System... +7.5
Unobligated Balances...................................... (37.4)
Department of the Air Force Adjustments:
BA 1 Distributed Mission Operations...................... (41.2)
BA 1 Base Services (gymnasiums).......................... (65.0)
BA 1 Oxygen Mask and Visor............................... +2.0
BA 1 Utilities Privatization............................. (17.6)
Military to Civilian Conversion........................... (37.0)
Unobligated Balances...................................... (195.4)
Defense-Wide Activities Adjustments:
BA 1 The Joint Staff-Management Headquarters Training
Transformation.......................................... (8.9)
BA 1 Office of the Inspector General Mid-Range Financial
Improvement Plan........................................ (35.2)
BA 1 SOCOM-Bio/Chem Resistant Canteens................... +1.0
BA 3 National Defense University, Joint Forces Staff
College................................................. +2.4
BA 4 Defense Human Resources Activity DLAMP.............. (7.3)
BA 4 Defense Human Resources Activity Fellows............ (4.8)
BA 4 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) CTMA................. +15.0
BA 4 DLA Beryllium Supply Industrial Base................ +3.0
BA 4 Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Ft. Carson
Compatible Use Buffers.................................. +10.0
BA 4 OSD Capitol Cost Sharing............................ (61.3)
BA 4 OSD Readiness Environmental Preservation............ +20.0
BA 4 American Forces Information Service................. (10.0)
Unobligated Balances...................................... (103.2)
Transfers to Title XV:
BA 1 Army Rapid Fielding Initiative...................... (102.8)
BA 1 Army Operating Tempo................................ (115.7)
BA 1 Army Depot Maintenance.............................. (269.8)
BA 1 Army Repair Parts................................... (56.9)
BA 1 Army Unit of Action Experimentation................. (37.2)
BA 4 Army Sustainment System Technical Support........... (116.0)
BA 4 Army NATO Support................................... (11.8)
BA 1 Navy Operating Tempo................................ (180.0)
BA 1 USMC Depot Maintenance.............................. (51.8)
BA 1 USMC Operating Tempo................................ (95.9)
BA 1 Air Force Operating Tempo........................... (476.0)
Base Services Related Supplies
The budget request contained $123.7 million for Base
Services Related Supplies and Materials, representing an
increase of $83.7 million from the amount authorized for fiscal
year 2005. The committee understands that the need for force
enables such services as mess attendants, gymnasiums, and
libraries and is aware of the impact these services have on
quality of life. However, the committee feels that tripling the
program funding is unjustified.
The committee recommends $58.7 million for Base Services
Related Supplies, a decrease of $65 million.
Capital Security Cost Share
The budget request contained $61.3 million for the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Capitol Security Cost Share.
Section 629 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
(Public Law 108-447) requires all agencies with an overseas
presence to fund a portion or share of the Department of
State's costs for the construction of U.S. diplomatic
facilities. Each agency's share is based on the number of
personnel based in overseas diplomatic facilities. DOD's
estimated share of the fiscal year 2006 assessment is $61.3
million. This fee is expected to increase to $125.6 million by
fiscal year 2009, despite forecasted stability in DOD overseas
staffing levels. In accordance with section 629(e)(1) of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447), the
program encourages right-sizing of each agency's overseas
presence. While the committee notes that the Department plays a
critical role in the Department of State's ability to
accomplish its worldwide mission, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to scrutinize the number of overseas
positions and take steps to ensure that only staff essential to
DOD's mission are based in overseas diplomatic facilities.
Furthermore, the committee believes that the Department of
Defense provides non-reimbursed goods and services to the
Department of State at a level that exceeds the assessed
amount.
The committee recommends a decrease of $61.3 million for
the Capital Security Cost Share.
Civilian Intern Program
The budget request contained $51.7 million in program
growth for the Department of the Army's Civilian Intern
Program. While the committee agrees a career program to train
new hires is appropriate, the committee believes the requested
program growth is excessive. The committee notes that the
program will have only 22 new interns in fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommends a decrease of $32.0 million.
Distributed Mission Operations
The budget request contained $181.9 million for sustainment
and expansion of the Distributed Mission Operations (DMO)
program, an increase of $60.3 million. The committee supports
DMO as an effective and vital means of maintaining war fighting
capability and readiness, but is concerned that expansion of
the program at the rate requested is excessive. The committee
supports sustainment of the current program and the expansion
of one F-15E and two F-16 Mission Training Centers (MTC). With
the addition of these new MTCs, the Air Force will have a
worldwide total of four F-15C sites, one F-15E site, six F-16
sites, and two E-3B Airborne Warning and Control System sites.
The committee recommends funding DMO at $140.0 million, a
decrease of $41.9 million.
Eagle Vision
The budget request contained no funds for operating and
maintaining the Eagle Vision. The committee believes that the
ability to receive, process, and exploit commercial imagery
products through Eagle Vision is of high value.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million for
operating Eagle Vision.
Expansion of Export Control Database
The budget request contained $320.1 million for the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency including funds to strengthen and
expand the existing federal effort to help foreign governments
improve their export control performance. The committee notes
that the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control operates an
export control database that is currently used by some 16
countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
The committee recommends an additional $1.3 million to
sustain and expand the worldwide subscriptions to this
database, provide education and training for its use, expand
the database coverage of weapons of mass destruction with
specific focus on terrorism threats, produce a secure intranet
version of the database, and continue related research and
public education initiatives on export control policy.
Joint Initiatives
The budget request contained funds for over 120 different
joint programs, studies, and management initiatives. Of
specific concern is the lack of oversight of joint training.
The committee strongly believes that joint initiatives are
critical to the success of the U.S. military in response to the
threats challenging our nation in the new millennium. The
committee, however, is concerned that the Secretary of Defense
lacks oversight of the vast number and broad scope of joint
initiatives that have proliferated across the Department of
Defense (DOD). The committee has not seen evidence that the
Joint Forces Command, the Joint Staff, and military services
coordinate funding requirements for joint training programs to
include the Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercise Program, the Joint
National Training Capability, service-sponsored exercises, and
sustainment and modernization of DOD training ranges. The
committee is concerned there are duplicate and unnecessary
funding requests.
The committee recommends a decrease of $12.9 million in
funding for the Department of the Navy's Joint Forces Command
and a decrease of $8.9 million in funding for The Joint Staff's
Management Headquarters for Training Transformation.
Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan
The budget request contained $485 million to implement the
mid-range financial improvement plan. Late in fiscal year 2004,
the Secretary of Defense initiated a mid-range financial
improvement plan to obtain financially auditable statements by
fiscal year 2007. The committee determined this plan was poorly
defined, had uncertain implementation plans and was not
properly articulated to the defense agencies or military
services. In accordance with section 352 of the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
(Public Law 108-375), the Secretary was prohibited from
obligating operation and maintenance funds to implement this
plan until a report better describing the program was delivered
to Congress. The report has not yet been delivered.
Nevertheless, the Department of Defense, Inspector General,
awarded a task and delivery order contract to an audit firm to
proceed with the audits. The committee believes the plan
continues to lack an appropriate structure or implementation
plan.
The committee recommends a decrease of $32.5 million to the
Department of Defense, Inspector General and a decrease of
$16.0 million to the Department of the Navy. The committee
understands that no other defense agencies or military services
budgeted funds in fiscal year 2006 for the mid-range financial
improvement plan.
Military-to-Civilian Conversion Program
The budget request contained $89.3 million in the civilian
personnel account for 1,395 Air Force military-to-civilian
conversions. While the committee concurs that this program is
essential to free up military end strength for operational
functions, the committee is concerned that plan is not
executable due to the hiring time required for civilian
personnel.
The committee recommends funding military-to-civilian
conversions at $52.3 million, a decrease of $37.0 million.
Navy Ship Disposal
The budget request contained $11.9 million for ship
disposal within the operation and maintenance, Navy. The
committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy has developed an
efficient ship disposal program with a sound record of
protecting health, safety, and the environment. The committee
expects that these additional funds will be used to accelerate
planned disposals, including reefing and deepwater sinking
(SINKEX). In section 3505 of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation is required to transfer, through use of the
Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) no fewer than four obsolete
combatant vessels from Maritime Administration's (MARAD)
inventory to the Navy for disposal using Navy disposal
contracts. The committee understands that the cost of disposal
under the Navy program is sometimes more expensive than through
MARAD disposal contractors. While the transfer under the
Economy Act requires an accompanying transfer of funds from
MARAD, the Navy is encouraged to utilize part of the increase
recommended in this section to ensure that the transfers
recommended in section 3505 are implemented in a timely but
cost effective manner. While acknowledging differences in
program administration, the committee also encourages the
Secretary of the Navy to assist the Maritime Administration in
developing best management disposal practices similar to those
the Navy currently has in place.
The committee recommends $19.9 million, an increase of $8.0
million.
Operation Tempo Alignment to Account for the Global War on Terrorism
Over the past three fiscal years, the administration has
relied upon emergency supplemental funds to support the global
war on terrorism (GWOT). Costs directly associated with the
GWOT are not included in the annual Department of Defense
budget request. Despite this policy, the committee believes
such costs are embedded in the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
The committee has accordingly transferred $1,511.9 million out
of the budget request into the ``bridge'' supplemental fund
found in title XV of this bill:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.......................................................... +708.2
Navy.......................................................... +180.0
Marine Corps.................................................. +147.7
Air Force..................................................... +476.0
Tank Sonic Dry Clean Filter Systems
The committee believes the secretaries of the military
departments should continue to adapt maintenance requirements
for equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to extend their
useful life. One action the committee believes should be taken
is the cleaning and reuse of filters needed in Army tanks. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to purchase and
utilize the tank sonic dry clean filter systems for appropriate
tank engines in theatre.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for
the Secretary to purchase, deploy, and train personnel on the
proper use of these systems.
Utilities Privatization Implementation
As noted in items of special interest in title 28 of
division B of this Act, a recent report by the Government
Accountability Office raises significant concerns about the
efficacy of the Department of Defense's utilities privatization
program. As such, section 2812 provides for the temporary
suspension of utilities privatization authorities.
In accordance with this provision, the committee recommends
the following reductions to reflect savings related to
utilities privatization implementation efforts that will not
occur during fiscal year 2006:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.......................................................... (15.0)
Navy.......................................................... (57.0)
Air Force..................................................... (17.6)
Information Technology Issues
Overview
The committee is well aware of the critical importance of
information technology (IT) to the conduct of combat operations
as well as the efficient management of Department of Defense
(DOD) business operations. IT systems provide the real-time
intelligence that enables U.S. soldiers to detect and avoid
danger; help find and defeat the enemy; and enable battlefield,
theatre, and domestic medical technologies to save the lives of
battle-wounded troops. IT systems will also someday provide the
means by which the Department can accurately manage its people,
funds, and equipment--a daunting challenge for a worldwide,
dynamic, half-a-trillion-dollar enterprise facing a determined
and elusive enemy.
The committee recognizes the importance of IT and has taken
a particular interest in DOD's management of IT programs in
recent years. The committee has and continues to stress the
importance of a DOD-wide enterprise architecture to lay the
foundation, set the standards, guide the development, and
ensure interoperability of new systems.
Adjustments to Information Technology
Overall, the committee is pleased that the Department has
progressed in several areas: more focused management of
programs, more emphasis on joint programs, and most
importantly, an emphasis on warfighting systems that protect
American lives, inform battlefield commanders, and more
precisely guide U.S. munitions.
Despite commendable progress, the committee believes that
several programs recommended for funding in the budget request
are redundant or premature. For example, the base level
communications infrastructure program proposed by the Air Force
should be delayed until the impacts of the overseas base
restructuring, the base realignment and closure process, and
the Quadrennial Defense Review are better known. Other programs
have suffered delays or do not yet have firm requirements which
the committee believes will preclude the prudent expenditure of
funding in the budget request.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
adjustments:
[In millions of dollars]
Department of the Army Adjustments:
Live Instrumentation Air and Missile Defense Units........ +5.0
Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery System............ +3.5
GFEBS..................................................... (24.9)
Department of the Air Force Adjustments:
Base Level Communications Structure....................... (103.0)
Combat Information Transportation System.................. (32.0)
Medical Qualification Tracking Visualization Data Analysis +0.6
Defense-wide Adjustments:
Office of the Secretary of Defense Business Modernization
Program (BMMP) and Domains.............................. (12.6)
Defense Logistics Agency BMMP Logistics Systems
Modernization........................................... (1.8)
Army Knowledge Online Disaster Recovery
The budget request contained $79.0 million for the Army
Knowledge Online (AKO) effort.
AKO is a critical key technology component of the AKO
strategy. The AKO portal is the single, secure access point for
1.7 million Army personnel and other users supporting the Army
into the Army Intranet, and provides deployed soldiers' access
to various Army and Department of Defense systems. AKO provides
core enterprise-wide directory, security, collaboration, and
other functionalities.
The committee notes the increased utilization of AKO,
combined with dramatic data growth has resulted in the need for
improvements to the Army's disaster recovery services.
Additionally, the Army plans to host other Army mission
critical applications at the disaster recovery facilities as
part of their plan for server consolidation and AKO
integration. The committee believes additional efforts are
necessary to ensure continuity of operations and critical
functions for AKO.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $82.5 million for
AKO, an increase of $3.5 million for disaster recovery
services.
Enterprise License Agreement
The Department of Defense's (DOD) continuing transition
from legacy to state-of-the-art information technology systems
is burdened with rising modernization costs. The committee
supports DOD's efforts to mitigate such cost pressures and
encourages the Department to embrace more innovative contract
arrangements to realize cost savings.
The committee believes that savings will be achieved and
security enhanced in the procurement of commercial software
applications by including provisions in the original
procurement agreement that the delivered software meet DOD
configuration standards. Additional stipulations that the
vendor will update the software to meet any necessary DOD-
driven configuration changes will yield further savings. The
committee notes that the Air Force entered into such an
innovative agreement in June 2004, that has accomplished these
results.
The committee believes the Department should explore the
successful Air Force model for possible emulation throughout
the Department. Therefore, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
to review the Air Force enterprise license agreement, consider
applying a similar approach for the Department, and submit a
report on this assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2006.
High Performance Computing Systems--``Supercomputers''
The committee is concerned that despite the availability of
cost effective, commodity, multi-processor computer systems,
more attention must be directed toward improving software to
improve ``time-to-solution'' for scientific discovery and
national security workloads. When procuring High Performance
Computing (HPC) systems, the committee is concerned that the
U.S. HPC community is advertising the theoretical peak
performance of HPC systems while down-playing the more
important actual sustained performance delivered by such
systems on an HPC center's actual workload.
Since the traditional U.S. leadership in HPC systems is
critical to U.S. competitiveness and many technologies critical
to the Department of Defense (DOD), the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 15, 2006, on the following: (1) a
five year plan for advanced software at all levels from
applications to system tools that improve HPC time-to-solution,
to include complementary multi-agency activities; and (2) a two
year plan for advanced software development producing
measurable goals and milestones that result in time-to-solution
benchmarks more predictive of HPC performance for various
actual systems and workloads than the synthetic workloads
sometimes currently used for performance prediction. Both of
these reports must outline the steps the Department will take
to improve HPC software resulting in significant improvements
in time-to-solution and performance prediction for today's DOD
HPC applications and emerging 2010 petascale applications. The
committee encourages the Department to share any improvements
resulting from execution of these plans to be made available to
the entire U.S. HPC community to promote continued U.S.
leadership in HPC.
Live Instrumentation for Air and Missile Defense Units
The budget request contained no funding for live
instrumentation for Air and Missile Defense (AMD) units.
Recent operations in Iraq highlight the critical need for
AMD units to have opportunities to ``train like we fight'' and
to do so with both manned and unmanned air assets. The
committee believes that instrumentation and digital links to
the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, will
address the immediate need to integrate AMD forces with the
Army maneuver combat training to allow for a truly joint
training environment. The committee believes live training
instrumentation will allow real-time data collection and
analysis, as well as mitigate current training and readiness
issues. AMD units play an increasingly important role in the
U.S. national security strategy and they should be included in
joint training and exercises.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $5.0 million for the
continuing development of training instrumentation for AMD
units
Medical Qualification Tracking Visualization and Data Analysis Project
The Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board
(the Board) is responsible for the determination of medical
acceptability of applications to all the U.S. service academies
and the Reserve Officer Training Corps Scholarship program. The
Board processes 27,000 applications annually, not including the
thousands of transactions it processes in response to
congressional and service academy inquiries. The committee
understands that the Board requires a visual mechanism for
extracting information from its database. The committee
believes this requirement may be satisfied by the Medical
Qualification Tracking Visualization and Data Analysis (MQTVDA)
Project which is an application that data mines the Board's
database. The committee believes the MQTVDA will provide
greater transparency to this process and improve the Board's
efficiency.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $600,000 for the
research and development of MQTVDA.
Medical Information Systems Architecture
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
is considering conversion of its Composite Health Care System
(CHCS) to an alternative database and application platform.
CHCS provides essential, automated information support to
military health system providers at hospitals and clinics
worldwide. The existing CHCS application runs on a legacy
database system that is supported by an aging operating system,
and is limited to a single hardware platform. Converting CHCS
to an open architecture would provide significant improvements
and expand hardware options. The committee supports DOD's
efforts to exploit previous technological investments, and to
utilize new technologies as necessary to transform clinical
support systems in a cost and operationally efficient manner.
However, the committee notes that this transformation should
not result in a stove-piped system. The committee strongly
encourages the Department to apply lessons learned in recent
pilot demonstrations, in conjunction with DOD's existing
enterprise architecture, to guide its CHCS conversion efforts,
and to maximize return on investment.
Network Device Authentication
The committee recognizes the importance of computer network
security to protect sensitive information. The committee is
aware that in addition to authenticating network users, it is
now possible to authenticate devices that access computer
networks, which add an extra layer of security. The committee
urges the Secretary of Defense to examine device authentication
alternatives for security and cost-effectiveness and to
consider incorporating device authentication for the Department
of Defense's computer networks.
Radio Frequency Identification in the Medical Supply Chain
The committee notes the progress made by the Military
Health Care System (MHS) pharmacy program to implement bar code
technology to manage pharmaceutical logistics and improve
patient safety. The committee is aware that the Secretary of
Defense has mandated that all Department of Defense (DOD)
components shall immediately resource and implement the use of
high data capacity active radio frequency identification (RFID)
in DOD operational environment. When fully implemented, RFID
technology will improve the asset tracking and lifecycle
management of the medical supply chain, medical logistics
management, facility security, patient safety and medical
equipment maintenance. The committee urges the Secretary to
begin implementing RFID in the medical supply chain consistent
with DOD's RFID policies and architecture to prevent the MHCS
from becoming stove-piped or unable to operate with other DOD
systems.
Servicewide Communication--General Fund Enterprise Business Systems
The budget request contained $31.8 million in operation and
maintenance funds for the General Fund Enterprise Business
System (GFEBS). The $31.8 million was transferred from base
operations support to servicewide communications in fiscal year
2005. The committee understands that the Secretary of the Army
only requires $6.9 million for GFEBS in fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommends $6.9 million for GFEBS, a decrease
of $24.9 million.
Other Matters
Arsenal Support Program Initiative
The committee is aware that the Rock Island Arsenal has
been administratively split into two separate commands, a
garrison command and a manufacturing command. While the
committee supports this restructuring effort, there is concern
that this action may preclude the entire Rock Island Arsenal
from being considered eligible for the Arsenal Support Program
Initiative. The committee encourages the Department of the Army
to consider the Rock Island Arsenal, in its entirety, as an
``eligible facility'' as defined by in section 4551 of title
10, United States Code.
Base Operating Support Budget Shortfalls
The committee is concerned by widespread reports of
shortfalls in base operating support (BOS) budgets at U.S.
military installations. According to these reports, BOS
shortfalls have caused the services to consider or implement
reductions to basic base services such as child care, dining
hall operations, and facilities management activities,
dramatically affecting both military quality of life and
readiness. The committee is aware that the Department has a
long history of utilizing infrastructure budgets, including BOS
and sustainment, restoration, and modernization budgets, as
``billpayers'' for operational requirements, and most recently,
to support costs associated with the global war on terrorism.
The committee is troubled by this practice, and urges the
Department to fully fund and execute BOS, sustainment, and
facilities recapitalization budgets.
In addition, the committee directs each service secretary
to report to the House Committee on Armed Services by June 15,
2005, the amount of funding each service anticipates expending
for BOS and sustainment activities during fiscal year 2005.
Each secretary should provide an estimate of funding levels
necessary to fully meet ``must pay'' BOS requirements as well
as DOD's goal of funding 95 percent of sustainment
requirements. The reports should also include a listing of
anticipated reductions to BOS-funded services if anticipated
execution levels are below the ``must pay'' level. Finally,
each report should include an assessment of whether the amount
of BOS funding included in the fiscal year 2006 budget request
is sufficient to meet ``must pay'' requirements, and a list of
likely sources of funding or base activity cuts that would be
necessary to meet budgeted levels during the coming fiscal
year.
Budget Justification Documents for Operation and Maintenance
In the committee report (H. Rept. 108-106) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public
Law 108-136), the committee noted the continued growth in the
``other costs'' and ``other contracts'' line items in the
service's summary of price and program growth exhibits
contained in the budget justification material. In response to
section 1003 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), the
Secretary of Defense submitted a report to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services
identifying the elements of ``other costs'' and ``other
contracts'' used in the justification materials of the budget
request. The report identified categories of information that
the committee believes should be specifically identified under
the ``other purchases'' category in the summary of price and
program growth exhibit for fiscal year 2008. The committee,
therefore, directs the Secretary to identify in budget
justification material submitted for fiscal year 2008, and
thereafter, the costs for outsourcing and privatization,
information technology contracts, other base support
contractual services, other training contractual support, and
military personnel contract support.
Evaluation of Department of Defense Policy Prohibiting the Purchase of
Technical Data to Accompany Acquired Systems
The committee is concerned that Department of Defense (DOD)
policies may limit the services from purchasing technical data
when acquiring systems, and thereby substantially increase the
sustainment portion of the system's total life cycle costs and
delay repair of mission essential items. The committee directs
the Comptroller General to submit a report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2006, containing a comprehensive analysis
of the impact of these policies. The comprehensive analysis
shall include the following: (1) the status of DOD's plan to
revise acquisition policy and regulations in response to
recommendations in the Government Accountability Office Report
(GAO-04-715) dated August, 2004; (2) the costs associated with
the fees assessed for access to view, modify, or distribute
technical data relating to the sustainment of procured systems;
(3) the assessment of time required to reach back to the system
manufacturer for technical data and what impact, if any, this
delay has on repairing or modifying fielded systems; and (4)
recommendations for more effectively managing the costs
associated with technical data access requirements associated
with future procurement contracts.
Food Supplies
The committee is aware of the Subsistence Prime Vendor
program in the Department of Defense, under which a single
vendor manages and supplies food in a particular region. The
committee understands that other initiatives or programs to
improve the efficiencies of food distribution are being
examined within the Department. The committee is interested in
these alternative programs and directs the Secretary to submit
a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2005, detailing the alternative programs currently being
evaluated.
Naval Oceanographic Command
The committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy is
in the preliminary process phase of evaluating whether to
conduct a study under Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-76 for administrative support and budget/finance functions
performed by government personnel at the Naval Oceanographic
Command. During this phase, the committee believes the
Secretary should take into consideration the various
independent reviews that have previouslyexamined this question,
including those done by the Logistics Management Institute and Booz
Allen Hamilton.
Pine Bluff Arsenal
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has
invested millions of dollars in the Pine Bluff Arsenal,
Arkansas, for specialized infrastructure and environmental
regulatory permit capacity to provide needed capability to
manufacture, repair, assemble and store specialized chemical
and biological defense equipment. The committee encourages the
Secretary of the Army to fully examine operations at the Pine
Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, in order to determine if depot-level
activities are being performed at the facility and if these
activities qualify the arsenal for designation as a Center for
Industrial and Technical Excellence for Chemical and Biological
Defense Equipment.
Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
The budget request contained $218.2 million in operation
and maintenance for the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
program. The committee is concerned about the manning of the
Predator UAV. Specifically, the committee has informally
inquired about the morale and motivation of rated Air Force
officer pilots flying the Predator. The committee has also
questioned the costs of flight qualifying pilots in a high
performance jet aircraft, only to send them to fly the UAV. The
committee has questioned whether enlisted personnel could be
flight/operator qualified certified, licensed by the Federal
Aviation Administration, and given a specialty code of Predator
pilot. The committee notes the other military services' UAV
programs utilize enlisted pilot/operators almost exclusively.
The committee firmly believes the cost associated with such
training is dramatically lower than that of rated pilot
officers.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to conduct a study of the efficacy of creating an
enlisted pilot/operator specialty code for the Predator UAV.
The study should review the feasibility of training, employing,
and maintaining enlisted pilots. It should compare the costs of
training, the career salary costs, and the retirement cost
projections of enlisted pilot/operators versus rated pilots.
Finally, the study should carefully explore the morale and
motivational career issues. The committee expects the report to
be submitted to the congressional defense committees and the
congressional intelligence committees by June 30, 2006.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize $124.3 billion in operation
and maintenance funding for the military departments and
defense-wide activities.
Section 302--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize $3.2 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 $22.3 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 Required Content of Environmental Quality
Annual Report
This section would amend section 2706(b) of title 10,
United States Code, to revise existing reporting requirements
on environmental quality programs and other environmental
activities. This section would repeal the requirement of the
Secretary of Defense to report annually to Congress a list of
planned or ongoing projects necessary to support environmental
quality programs that exceed $1.5 million during the reporting
period and a statement of fines and penalties imposed against
the Department of Defense and the military departments under
applicable environmental laws during the fiscal year. This
section would also eliminate the reporting requirement for the
following expenditures on overseas environmental activities:
environmental technology, conferences, meetings, studies for
pilot programs, and overseas travel. The committee notes this
section will reduce costs to the Department.
Section 312--Pilot Project on Compatible Use Buffers on Real Property
Bordering Fort Carson, Colorado
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a pilot project at Fort Carson, Colorado, for
purposes of evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of
utilizing conservation easements and leases to limit
development and preserve habitat on real property in the
vicinity of military installations in the United States. The
pilot program would be conducted in four phases as described in
the Fort Carson Army Compatible User Buffer Project, which is a
plan to use conservation easements and leases on property in
the vicinity of Fort Carson, Colorado. The pilot program shall
expire in five years or on the date of completion of the fourth
phase of the Fort Carson Army Compatible User Buffer Project,
whichever is earlier.
Section 313--Repeal of Air Force Report on Military Installation
Encroachment Issues
This section would repeal a reporting requirement in
section 315 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
Section 314--Payment of Certain Private Cleanup Costs in Connection
with Defense Environmental Restoration Program
This section would amend section 2701 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse
a private land owner for costs incurred assisting the
Department of Defense (DOD) in meeting its covenant
responsibilities, pursuant to section 120(h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERLCA) of 1980 (Public Law 95-510), to conduct
clean up on property once under the control and contaminated by
DOD. This section does not affect, alter or diminish the
Secretary's obligation and responsibility to conduct clean up
under section 120 of the CERCLA.
Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues
Section 321--Proceeds from Cooperative Activities with Non-Army
Entities
This section would amend section 4544 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize Army industrial facilities to retain
the working capital funds received from the sale of unique
goods or services. Section 4544 identifies the limited
circumstances under which goods and services can be sold.
Section 322--Public-Private Competition
This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
``formal'' competition when conducting the analysis required
under section 2461. This would impact the Secretary's ability
to conduct a streamlined competition authorized in the Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-76. This section would also
prohibit reorganizing or remodeling a function performed by
government employees for the purpose of avoiding the
competition requirements of section 2461.
Section 323--Public-Private Competition Pilot Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program using the process defined in Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 on four public-private
competitions for work currently performed by a contractor. The
pilot program shall be completed in three years. The Secretary
shall submit a report to Congress with the study results.
Section 324--Sense of Congress on Equitable Legal Standing for Civilian
Employees
This section would state that it is the sense of Congress
that Department of Defense civilian employees should receive
comparable treatment as contractors throughout the process of a
public-private competition, and in particular, with respect to
legal standing to challenge the competition.
Subtitle D--Extension of Program Authorities
Section 331--Extension of Authority to Provide Logistics Support and
Services for Weapons Systems Contractors
This section would amend section 365 of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public
Law 107-314) by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2010''. This
would extend, for an additional three years, a program under
which the Secretary of Defense may make available logistics
support and services to a contractor for the construction,
modification, or maintenance of a weapon system. The
regulations required to be published prior to implementation
have not yet been published. They are expected to be published
in the current fiscal year. The extension, therefore, would
allow the Secretary five years to conduct the pilot program.
Section 332--Extension and Revision of Temporary Authority for
Contractor Performance of Security Guard Functions
This section would prohibit contractor performance of
security guard functions, awarded under authority of section
332 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-31), to be in effect after
September 30, 2006. To fill a requirement for security guard
functions, as authorized under section 332, the Secretary of
Defense and the secretaries of the military departments must
conduct new full and open competitions pursuant to section 2304
of title 10, United States Code. In conducting these new
competitions the authority in section 602 of the Business
Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-656)
would not apply. New contracts could be in effect until the end
of fiscal year 2008.
Subtitle E--Utah Test and Training Range
Section 341--Definitions
This section would define the terms ``covered wilderness'',
``Tribe'', ``Utah Test and Training Range,'' and ``Wilderness
Act.''
Section 342--Military Operations and Overflights, Utah Test and
Training Range
This section would first explain the importance of the Utah
Test and Training Range through the use of congressional
findings. This section would also further define the intent of
both the Utah Test and Training Range Protection Act and the
Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577).
Section 343--Planning Process for Federal Lands in the Utah Test and
Training Range
This section would first require the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to
develop land use plans for federal lands in the Utah Test and
Training Range. This section would also prohibit the Secretary
of the Interior from granting or issuing any authorizations for
rights-of-way under the Federal Land Policy and Manage Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761) upon certain federal lands identified as
inventory units.
Section 344--Designation and Management of Cedar Mountain Wilderness,
Utah
This section would designate certain federal lands in
Tooele County, Utah, as wilderness and therefore as a component
of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Section 345--Identification of Additional Bureau of Land Management
Land in Utah as Trust Land for Skull Valley Band of Goshutes
This section would identify approximately 640 acres of
Bureau of Land Management land in the State of Utah to be
administered in trust for the benefit of the Skull Valley Band
of Goshutes.
Section 346--Relation to Other Lands and Laws
This section would make clarifying and technical
corrections.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 351--Codification and Revision of Limitation on Modification of
Major Items of Equipment Scheduled for Retirement or Disposal
This section would codify and revise existing reporting
requirements in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2005 (Public Law 108-287) on modifications to aircraft,
weapons, vessels, and other items of equipment scheduled to be
retired or disposed of within five years. This section would
deviate from the previous reporting requirement by limiting the
notice to Congress to only those instances where the
modification costs exceed $1 million. Historically, 98 percent
of waiver requests have been for modifications that had a total
installed value below this mark and involved equipment that
would be removed and reused when the host system was retired.
This exception would balance the need to minimize
administrative delays in mission-essential modernization with
the appropriate degree of oversight.
Section 352--Limitation on Purchase of Investment Items With Operation
and Maintenance Funds
This section would codify and revise a limitation in the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-
287). This section would prohibit the use of operation and
maintenance funds for the purchase or replacement, of an
investment item which costs more than $250,000. It has come to
the committee's attention that the Secretary of the Army has
expended operation and maintenance funds for the purchase of
Shadow unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Secretary's
rationale is that under the contractor logistics support
contract, the contractor was required to maintain a wartime
readiness rate of 85 percent. In at least nine instances this
required the contractor to replace a UAV beyond economic
repair. This provision would make clear that replacing an item
that is beyond economic repair is equivalent to purchasing an
item. The committee notes it's concerned with the Department of
the Army's inability to gather the relevant facts.
Section 353--Provision of Department of Defense Support for Certain
Paralympic Sporting Events
This section would create a new exception for the Secretary
of Defense to authorize support for sporting events sanctioned
by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Paralympic
Military Program. The USOC Paralympic Military Program provides
support for veterans with service-connected physical
disabilities to participate in Paralympic sports as a regular
and ongoing part of their rehabilitation and daily lives.
Additionally, the section would enable the Secretary to
authorize up to $1.0 million per fiscal year in support for
USOC sanctioned national or international Paralympic sporting
events in which participation exceeds 500 athletes.
Section 354--Development and Explanation of Budget Models for Base
Operations Support, Sustainment, and Facilities Recapitalization
This section would require a report during each of the next
five fiscal years from the Secretary of Defense on the
Department of Defense's (DOD) models for base operations
support (BOS), sustainment, and facilities recapitalization
budgets. The report should include an explanation of the
methodology used to build each model; a description of items
contained in each model; whether the models are being applied
to each service under common definitions of BOS, sustainment,
and facilities recapitalization; the goals for appropriate
funding levels in the coming fiscal years for each area of
funding; justification for those goals; and changes made to the
models and/or goals since the last report.
As noted previously, the committee is troubled by DOD's
practice of utilizing BOS, sustainment, and facilities
recapitalization budgets as ``billpayers'' for operational
requirements and costs related to the global war on terrorism.
While the Department's efforts to establish ``models'' to
determine appropriate funding levels for BOS, sustainment, and
facilities recapitalization are noteworthy, the committee
recognizes that such models have little value if they do not
include Department-wide definitions, are executed at levels
inconsistent with model findings, are manipulated to justify
sub-standard budget requests, or do not accurately determine
requirements. The committee expects that this annual reporting
requirement will provide a useful tool for oversight of DOD's
installation budgets.
Section 355--Report on Department of the Army Programs for
Prepositioning of Equipment and Other Materiel
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
conduct an assessment of Department of the Army programs for
prepositioned equipment and materiel. Since Operation Iraqi
Freedom, the Army has continued to rely heavily on
prepositioned stocks. The committee is concerned about the
inventory levels and maintenance condition of the stocks. The
assessment would include a review of all equipment, stocks and
sustainment programs as well as how the program is currently
configured to support the evolving goals of the Department of
the Army. The Secretary shall submit the assessment by January
1, 2006, to the House Committee on Armed Services. This section
would also require the Government Accountability Office to
provide a report to Congress on the Secretary of the Army's
assessment within 120 days of receipt of the report.
Section 356--Report Regarding Effect on Military Readiness of
Undocumented Immigrants Trespassing Upon Operational Ranges
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report to Congress
by March 15, 2006, on a joint plan to eliminate incursions of
undocumented immigrants into military training areas near
international borders. The report would also include an
assessment of the scope, nature, and impact on military
readiness caused by such incursions. This section would also
require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress semi-
annual reports on mitigating measures implemented since the
last report received.
According to the Marine Corps, undocumented immigrants who
entered the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona in 2004, caused
the loss of more than 1,250 training hours--or more than 50
training days. The committee is concerned by the impact that
such reductions in training time have on military readiness
levels. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to pursue mitigating measures resulting from the joint plan
required by this section and, where appropriate, seek
reprogramming authority during fiscal year 2006 to begin
implementation of such measures.
Section 357--Congressional Notification Requirements Regarding
Placement of Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities, Pipelines, and Related
Structures on Defense Lands
This section would require the Secretary of Defense or the
secretaries of the military departments to notify Congress
thirty days prior to issuing a final approval, disapproval, or
formal opinion regarding the placement of any liquefied natural
gas facility, pipelines, or related structure in the vicinity
of a military installation.
Section 358--Report Regarding Army and Air Force Exchange System
Management of Army Lodging
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to Congress on the results of a study
evaluating the merits of allowing the Army and Air Force
Exchange System to manage Army lodging. The section would
prevent the Department of the Army from soliciting or
considering any request for qualifications for privatization of
Army lodging beyond that already identified for inclusion in
Group A of the Privatization of Army Lodging Initiative.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Increases in Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized to be on
Active Duty for Operational Support
The committee notes a significant increase from fiscal year
2005 to fiscal year 2006 in the maximum number of reserve
component personnel authorized to be on active duty for
operational support. Although the committee, in section 415,
recommends the levels requested in the budget, the committee
desires to understand more fully the reasons behind the
significant increases. Therefore, the committee directs the
Comptroller General to assess the factors that led to the
fiscal year 2006 increases, as well as the factors being used
to develop the fiscal year 2007 budget request, and submit a
report of the results of that assessment to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by April 1, 2006.
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, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2006 Change from
FY 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized and Committee FY 2006 FY 2005
floor Request recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.................................. 502,400 482,400 482,400 0 -20,000
Navy.................................. 365,900 352,700 352,700 0 -13,200
USMC.................................. 178,000 175,000 175,000 0 -3,000
Air Force............................. 359,700 357,400 357,400 0 -2,300
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD............................... 1,406,000 1,367,500 1,367,500 0 -38,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authorizations contained in this section are the end
strengths requested in the budget. The committee does not
believe that the budget request provided adequate manning
levels for the Army and Marine Corps. Therefore, the committee,
in section 1521, recommends fiscal year 2006 increases of
30,000 for the Army and 4,000 for the Marine Corps above the
authorizations in this section.
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, 2006. These changes in minimum strengths reflect
the committee recommendations shown in section 401.
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, 2006:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2006 Change from
FY 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized Committee FY 2006 FY 2005
Request recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard................... 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 0
Army Reserve.......................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0
Navy Reserve.......................... 83,400 73,100 73,100 0 -10,300
Marine Corps Reserve.................. 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0
Air National Guard.................... 106,800 106,800 106,800 0 0
Air Force Reserve..................... 76,100 74,000 74,000 0 -2,100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total......................... 860,900 848,500 848,500 0 -12,400
Coast Guard Reserve................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of
September 30, 2006:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2006 Change from
FY 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized Committee FY 2006 FY 2005
Request recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard................... 26,602 27,345 27,345 0 743
Army Reserve.......................... 14,970 15,270 15,270 0 300
Naval Reserve......................... 14,152 13,392 13,392 0 -760
Marine Corps Reserve.................. 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard.................... 12,253 13,089 13,089 0 836
Air Force Reserve..................... 1,900 2,290 2,290 0 390
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total......................... 72,138 73,647 73,647 0 1,509
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's recommendation would provide for a 2.0
percent growth in the strength of these full-time reservists
above the levels authorized in fiscal year 2005.
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,
2006:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2006 Change from
FY 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized Committee
(floor) Request recommendation FY 2006 FY 2005
(floor) request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard................... 25,076 25,563 25,563 0 487
Army Reserve.......................... 7,299 7,649 7,649 0 350
Air National Guard.................... 22,956 22,971 22,971 0 15
Air Force Reserve..................... 9,954 9,853 9,853 0 -101
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total......................... 65,285 66,036 66,036 0 751
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's recommendation would provide for a 1.2
percent growth in the strength of military technicians above
the levels authorized in fiscal year 2005.
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2006 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, 2006:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ..............
Army Reserve.......................... 795 695 695 0 -100
Air National Guard.................... 350 350 350 0 ..............
Air Force Reserve..................... 90 90 90 0 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total......................... 2,835 2,735 2,735 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 2006 to provide
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count
against the end strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2006 Change from
FY 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized Committee FY 2006 FY 2005
Request recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard................... 10,300 17,000 17,000 0 6,700
Army Reserve.......................... 5,000 13,000 13,000 0 8,000
Naval Reserve......................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0
Marine Corps Reserve.................. 2,500 3,000 3,000 0 500
Air National Guard.................... 10,100 16,000 16,000 0 5,900
Air Force Reserve..................... 3,600 14,000 14,000 0 10,400
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total......................... 37,700 69,200 69,200 0 31,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The significant increase in the authorizations made in the
budget request compared to the fiscal year 2005 authorizations
is due to several factors, including the requirement of section
115(b), United States Code, that the authorizations reflect the
peak number in each of the reserve components during fiscal
year 2006. Furthermore, according to Department of Defense
officials, there was better oversight of data of the military
services with regard to the numbers of reserve component
members on active duty and increased reliance on voluntary
active duty service instead of involuntary mobilizations to
meet operational requirements.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Military Personnel
This section would authorize $1,088.2 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)
603: Pay reservists at academy prep schools based on military
grade..................................................... 1,000
606: Full basic allowance for housing for mobilized reservists 26,000
607: Increase flexibility to pay overseas cost-of-living
allowances................................................ 1,000
608: Reserve income replacement............................... 60,000
615: Additional special pay for dentists in residence......... 2,000
619: Increase flexibility to pay Selected Reserve reenlistment
bonuses................................................... 1,000
620: Increase cap on Selected Reserve enlistment bonus to $15K 16,000
621: Increase flexibility to pay prior service enlistment
bonuses................................................... 1,000
622: Increase cap on active duty enlistment bonus to $30K..... 36,000
641: Increase flexibility to pay expenses during temporary
duty...................................................... 1,000
644: Increased household goods limit for senior NCOs.......... 4,000
672: Pays considered as saved pay upon appointment as officer. 2,000
675: Army recruit referral bonus pilot program................ 1,000
Army: Expanded early commissioning program financial
assistance................................................ 2,400
GWOT funding Hardship Duty Pay................................ -36,000
GWOT funding Family Separation Allowance...................... -100,000
GWOT funding Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay................. -85,854
GAO Reserve Component Underexecution Army Guard............... -30,000
GAO Reserve Component Underexecution Army Reserve............. -10,000
GAO Reserve Component Underexecution Navy Reserve............. -10,000
GAO Reserve Component Underexecution Marine Corps Reserve..... -1,000
Section 422--Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would authorize $58.3 million to be
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home during fiscal year 2006.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
OVERVIEW
The committee's recommendations pay particular attention to
what the men and women of the armed forces have told the
committee in testimony, in discussions and meetings in the
field, at their home bases and installations, and in the
theaters of war. They and their families are a dedicated,
remarkable group of Americans who speak with candor and
credibility with regards to what, in this the fourth year of
the global war on terrorism, is working and what is not. In
that context, the committee recommends changes to the programs
that provide for the surviving family members of those who have
died or have been seriously injured in service. Specifically,
the secretaries of the military departments would be required
to appoint, train, and to manage casualty assistance officers
to improve that effort. Furthermore, provisions in this title
would require the appointment of officers to assist service
members who are seriously injured to ensure that they and their
families get only the best care and guidance during their time
of greatest need. Surviving family members would also be given
three years to select their final home for the transportation
of their possessions. The committee also recommends that the
Secretary of Defense manage the fairness and equity between the
services in the operation of their disability systems and their
treatment of disabled members who remain on active duty.
The committee recommends provisions to enhance the ability
of the Department of Defense to prosecute offenses relating to
sexual assault. For example, recommended changes to the Uniform
Code of Military Justice would eliminate the statute of
limitations for prosecution of murder, rape and rape of a
child; establish the offense of stalking in the Uniformed Code
of Military Justice; and clearly define the offense of rape,
sexual assault and other sexual misconduct in title 10, United
States Code, and pattern the elements of the offenses after the
federal statute.
The committee recommendations include provisions critical
to protecting the commissary and exchange benefits. One section
would provide the Defense Commissary Agency an assured
opportunity to complete its own internal efforts to achieve
greater efficiencies and savings before being subjected to
mandated cost comparison studies. Another recommendation would
require that appropriated funds be used to support the costs of
shipping goods of the military exchange services that are
destined for overseas stores. In addition, as part of title III
of this act, the committee recommends that $65.0 million be
added to the fiscal year 2006 Army second destination
transportation accounts to restore the reduction in the Army
and Air Force Exchange System accounts proposed by the budget
request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Advanced Civil School Opportunities for Officers of the Armed Forces
The committee notes that the military services are being
challenged to retain sufficient numbers of qualified junior and
mid-grade officers. The Army, in particular, is below required
inventory for majors and senior captains.
The committee is aware of studies that suggest retention of
officers with high potential could be improved by providing
those officers with an option to attend graduate school, on or
after their seventh year of commissioned service, coupled with
an agreement to extend their obligated service.
The committee understands that in previous years such fully
funded graduate programs contributed to the professional
development of and helped to prepare current senior military
officers, such as the commanders of the United Stated Central
Command and the Multinational Security Transition Command.
However, the committee also understands that similar graduate
level educational opportunities are no longer available for
today's officers, except those designated to become professors
at the military service academies or those assigned to
technical fields.
The committee believes that resumption of such fully funded
graduate degree programs could be beneficial. Therefore, the
committee directs the secretaries of the military departments
to examine the potential value and effectiveness of a program
designed to offer advanced civil schooling opportunities to
officers, both as a tool for retention and as a means to
increase the population of officers with a graduate education
in disciplines relevant to service needs. The secretaries of
the military departments shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives the reports of their assessments
not later than April 1, 2006
Comptroller General Review of Financial Management Programs
The committee report (H. Rept. 107-194) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
required a comprehensive examination of the personal financial
management programs operated within the military departments
and directed the Secretary of Defense to identify best
practices among the services to improve and standardize the
programs available to service members. While the committee
understands that the Department of Defense recognizes financial
literacy as an integral part of mission readiness and quality
of life, the committee is aware that financial problems
continue to challenge active duty personnel and their families.
Initial evidence also suggests that financial problems confront
reserve component personnel and their families. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General to review the
personal financial management programs offered by the services
to determine their effectiveness in meeting the needs of active
and reserve component service members. The review should
examine whether service members have adequate access to the
services' financial programs; whether the Department has
effectively carried out the fiscal year 2002 mandate; and
whether the financial management programs of the military
services meet the quality criteria established by the
Department. The Comptroller General should also assess the
impact of the Department's financial readiness campaign on
financial management awareness among service members; review
the effectiveness and appropriateness of the partnerships
established by the Department with non-governmental and
governmental agencies; and assess the Department's efforts to
determine the primary causes of bankruptcy among service
members and their families. The Comptroller General shall
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2006.
Confidentiality Definition for Domestic Violence
The committee applauds the Department of Defense for
issuing a confidentiality policy that protects the privacy and
dignity of victims of sexual assault. However, the Department
of Defense has yet to issue a comprehensive policy on
confidentiality for victims of domestic violence, despite the
fact that in 2001 the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence
recommended that the Department ``[E]xplore all options for
creating a system of confidential services, privileged
communications and/or exemptions to mandatory reporting with
the goal of creating access to a credible avenue for victims of
domestic violence to receive support, information, options and
resources to address the violence in their lives.'' The
committee strongly urges the Department to issue a
comprehensive confidentiality policy on domestic violence to
ensure the ability of victims of domestic violence to obtain
support, advocacy and care.
Coordinating the Activities of the Department of Defense, the
Department of Labor, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs Intended
to Assist Wounded and Injured Service Members and Surviving Family
Members of Military Deaths
The committee has observed that there is no existing forum
where the activities of the Department of Defense, the
Department of Labor, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs
can be coordinated in support of injured and wounded service
members and their families, and surviving family members of
military deaths. The committee believes it is vital that the
three departments meet on a regularly scheduled basis to
exchange information and coordinate programs for these service
members and families during their active duty service and after
separation from active duty or death of the member. The
committee believes that the effectiveness of the programs
operated by these departments can only be maximized when each
element of their respective programs is fully coordinated and
made available to the service members, veterans, and family
members who need assistance.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to examine the options for including the Department of Labor
and the Department of Veterans' Affairs in an existing meeting
or establishing a new committee structure where the interests
of wounded and injured service members and surviving family
members can be discussed by the three departments. The
Secretary of Defense should coordinate with the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs and should begin
addressing these issues in a joint committee structure within
180 days after the date of enactment of this act.
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
initiating the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap. The
committee recognizes the significant role of the Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center in achieving the
Department's language transformation objectives. However, the
committee is concerned that the position of Chancellor has been
vacant since January. Believing that the Commandant, together
with the Chancellor, will play key roles in promoting the
outcomes set forth in the roadmap, the committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to undertake an aggressive hiring process
to fill the Chancellor's position.
Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System
The committee staff visited a number of locations during
2004 where military personnel are assigned in medical hold
status. The purpose of the visits was to evaluate the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of the medical hold program and
examine the related medical and administrative policies,
processes, and procedures. During these visits, the committee
received complaints from reserve component members that they
were disadvantaged under the Disability Evaluation Systems
(DESs) operated by the military departments when compared to
the treatment received by active duty members. The reserve
component members contended that the disability ratings granted
to active duty members were consistently higher than those
granted to reservists for similar injuries and illnesses. This
complaint was particularly prevalent at medical hold locations
operated by the Army. The committee believes that the DESs
operated by the military departments must provide fair and
equitable treatment to all service members. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to review the results of the DESs operated by the military
departments and determine if they are operating in a fair and
equitable manner. The Comptroller General examination should
include surveys of the DES results at medical hold locations
and other community based sites where reserve component members
are being evaluated for disability ratings. The committee
directs the Comptroller General to submit a report of his
findings by March 31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.
Family Support, Employment and Transition Assistance Programs for
Service Members and Their Families
The committee is aware of multiple initiatives designed to
address the needs of families of deployed active and reserve
component personnel, and to provide transition and employment
assistance for returning service members and for those who have
been seriously injured. To facilitate a coordinated funding
approach, the committee recommends an increase of $8.5 million
to the Department of Defense Dependent's Education Agency
funding. The committee believes this agency, which already
coordinates the funding for the Family Advocacy Program, the
family assistance program, and the transition assistance and
relocation assistance programs, would be able to use its
experience in these programs to coordinate and direct the
additional funding that would:
(1) Assist the Department's jobs and employment for
military spouses' pilot programs;
(2) Support the National Guard Bureau initiatives to
improve the transition of catastrophically injured
active and reserve component service members, to assist
their families and increase employer support; and
(3) Encourage the implementation of pilot programs,
such as Operation Family Safe at Home, which seeks to
address the needs of military family not located near
military bases.
Foreign Area Officers
The committee recognizes the significant contribution of
Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) to our national security. Current
operations around the world have highlighted the importance of
and increased requirements for highly trained FAOs. As the
demand for these uniquely qualified individuals has grown, it
has become increasingly difficult to retain these skilled
officers. For example, the Army has experienced difficulty
retaining FAOs because the specialty lacks career advancement
opportunities and the demand for their expertise is growing
among other governmental agencies and within the private
sector. The committee understands that the Department of
Defense is revising its directive for developing and managing
FAOs within the services. However, the committee is concerned
that the new directive will fail to address the issues of
greatest concern and that these highly trained professionals
will not receive the benefit of a strategy to restructure the
FAO career path. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to study the feasibility of establishing a separate
military career field for FAOs and developing a career path
that would provide career progression opportunities for FAOs
from initial commissioning through promotion to senior officer
ranks. The study should at a minimum include:
(1) An examination of the current Service procedures
to ensure that only the most qualified individuals are
chosen to participate in the program;
(2) A review of the projected requirements for FAOs
and the status of the actions by the services necessary
to meet those requirements; and
(3) An examination of the services commitment to
providing the resources necessary to support the
development, training, and advancement of FAOs.
The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report of
his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2006, to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services.
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
historically used geographic criteria to objectively determine
eligibility for campaign and expeditionary awards. However, the
geographic criteria used to establish the Global War on
Terrorism (GWOT) Expeditionary Medal excludes service members
who are serving at Guatanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba because
they are located within 200 nautical miles from America's
shores. The committee believes that the service members
guarding the terrorists at Guatanamo Bay Naval Station should
be awarded the GWOT Expeditionary Medal. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to review the criteria used to
determine eligibility for the GWOT Expeditionary Medal and to
consider awarding the medal to individuals directly engaged in
GWOT operations who are serving outside the United States, but
within 200 nautical miles of its shores. The Secretary shall
submit a report of his findings and recommendations by March
31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services.
Job Corps Recruits
The committee recognizes that all the services are
experiencing greater difficulty recruiting the quality men and
women necessary to meet force requirements. The committee
believes that the Job Corps is an important partner in the
effort to identify and motivate the recruit candidates that are
needed. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
has had a close relationship with the Job Corps since its
inception in 1965, but the committee believes that the Job
Corps can play a larger role in the recruiting process. Using
methods that mirror military training processes and objectives,
the residential component of Job Corps instills discipline,
responsibility, and unit cohesion into participants and paves
the way for an easy transition to military service. The
committee is confident that the Job Corps can enhance its
contribution to the services' recruiting efforts and build upon
a 40-year successful residential education and training program
for disadvantaged youth. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Labor, to study additional initiatives to expand the
relationship between the Department of Defense and the Job
Corps. At a minimum, the study should assess the utility of a
DOD investment to develop a military oriented curriculum
designed to increase the value of Job Corps graduates to the
military services. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report of his findings and recommendations
by August 31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services.
Joint Advertising and Market Research
The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has an important corporate-level role to play in complementing
the recruiting and advertising programs of the individual
services. In that light, the committee believes that the DOD's
joint advertising and market research reinvention effort can
have a direct, positive long-term impact on the ability of the
Department and the military services to recruit quality
personnel. The committee believes that such a capability is
especially critical at a time when the recruiting efforts of
the military services are being challenged by a range of
factors. For that reason, the committee recommends an increase
of $10.0 million to the budget request for the DOD's joint
advertising and market research effort.
List of Organizations and Agencies Available to Assist Wounded and
Injured Service Members and Surviving Family Members of Military Deaths
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense,
organizations within the military departments, and other
governmental agencies responsible for providing assistance to
wounded and injured service members and their families and
surviving family members of military deaths are not fully aware
of all the agencies and organizations capable of providing
assistance. As a result, the committee believes that many
service members in need are denied support because they are not
aware of all the services that are available and there is no
coordinated effort to bring the agencies and organizations to
the attention of the service members and families.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to inventory the governmental agencies and private sector
organizations that are capable of providing assistance to
wounded and injured service members and their families and
surviving family members of military deaths. The Secretary
should organize and disseminate that list to all government
agencies responsible for counseling the service members and
families and develop guidelines for effective use of the list.
The Secretary should implement the system for delivering the
information about the agencies and organizations on the list to
service members and families within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this act.
Military Spouse Education and Employment
The committee recognizes that the decision by service
members and their families to remain in the military for a
career is heavily influenced by the ability of military spouses
to attain educational objectives and achieve career
aspirations. The committee is aware that many military families
place a high value on the second income earned by spouses and
are frustratedby the inability of the spouse to achieve their
full potential in the job market because of a lack of education or the
disruptive nature of permanent changes in station that are inherent in
military life. The committee appreciates that the Department of Defense
has a number of initiatives designed to improve military spouse access
to education programs and job opportunities. The committee is
particularly interested in exploring new cost effective avenues for
spouses to pursue their educational objectives because the committee
believes that improved education is an important key to resolving the
concerns about inadequate career opportunities. The committee also
believes that the Department of Defense should seek to ensure that the
programs are tailored to meet the unique challenges military spouses
face in seeking employment and educational opportunities, and determine
the level of awareness among spouses of the opportunities that are
available and the steps that could be taken to improve their level of
education and employment prospects. The review should also assess the
effectiveness of spouse employment programs for spouses with different
levels of educational attainment and past job experience. The committee
also urges the Secretary to further consider options for requiring
defense contractors to hire military spouses, particularly overseas and
in remote domestic locations that are isolated from civilian job
markets. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report on the general status of military spouse education and
employment programs and the matters listed above, to include specific
comment on the results of research regarding available educational
programs that are suitable for military spouses by March 31, 2006, to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services.
Professional Development and Certification of Military Security
Personnel
The committee is aware that military security management
professionals face many of the same challenges as their
civilian counterparts in developing new methods and best
practices for managing complex security issues and threats to
organizations, people and key assets. Recognizing that
certification and training programs available to civilian
security specialists could have benefit, the U.S. Air Force
Security Forces Directorate has offered Air Force personnel and
leaders professional development opportunities through a
commercial provider of security personnel training and
certification since 2004. The committee recognizes such
initiatives may have application in a wider Department of
Defense context. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to assess the Air Force initiative to
determine if it has applicability beyond the Air Force.
Reserve Component Family Support Programs
The committee is aware of anecdotal information that
suggests the support provided to the families of mobilized
reserve members was not consistently adequate. The committee
heard testimony and received information from other sources
that suggests more must be done to prepare the family for the
sponsor's mobilization and to verify the welfare of the family
during the absence of the service member. The committee is
aware of a number of initiatives that do not involve high cost,
but do require planning, diligent preparation, and competent
execution. The committee believes that much of the capability
needed to achieve positive results resides in the reserve units
and among the families themselves. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to review the performance of each of the
reserve components in supporting families during periods of
mobilization, record the best practices used by units that
provided effective support to families, and develop the
guidelines and standards for reserve units to employ prior to
and during periods of mobilization. The Secretary is directed
to submit a report of his findings and recommendations to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by October 31, 2006.
Review of Department Defense and Military Service Policies with Regard
to the Assignment of Women
In January 1994 the Secretary of Defense published policies
that prohibited the assignment of females of the Armed Forces
to direct ground combat units and established other criteria by
which females could be excluded from assignment to units and
positions. One of those criteria was that women could be
excluded from assignment to units and positions that are
doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with
direct ground combat units. Based on the application of the
collocation policy in 1994, the Army chose to keep 123,000
positions closed to the assignment of women.
The committee recently began to examine how the Army was
applying this so-called collocation policy with units deployed
in Iraq and Afghanistan and with units being reorganized as a
result of modularization.
Based on the information resulting from the discussions
with the Army, the committee believes that a detailed review of
the implementation of the 1994 Department of Defense policies
is in order. The committee has taken action in this bill to
assume more proactive control over assignment policies
governing units involved in ground combat. In addition, the
committee intends to undertake a full review of those
assignment policies and the rationale underpinning them. Among
the areas of immediate concern to the committee is the
application of the collocation policy. Given this concern, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the
collocation policy to determine its current and future
implementation, with the objective of ensuring that women
assigned to units and positions that support direct ground
combat units are minimally exposed to direct ground combat. The
Secretary of Defense shall present his report to the House
Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed
Services no later than March 1, 2006.
In the meantime, the committee urges that the Secretary of
Defense ensure that any reorganization of Army units take
particular care to minimally expose female members of that
service, either by doctrine or employment, to direct ground
combat.
Simultaneous Service of Family Members in a Combat Zone
The committee has observed that combat operations in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have
prompted concern about the simultaneous service of family
members in high risk areas. The committee notes that the DOD
policy regarding the simultaneous assignment of family members
to high risk areas does not preclude such assignments, but does
allow service members to voluntarily exempt themselves from
such assignments when family members are killed or disabled.
Advocates for change have suggested that family members should
be given the option to decline assignment to a high risk area
or request assignment from a high risk area when another family
member is assigned or will be assigned to such an area. The
committee, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, has
examined such proposals during previous conflicts and
recognizes that it is useful to periodically review the related
policies to assess the need for change.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to study the policies and procedures involved in the assignment
of family members to high risk areas and the implications of a
policy that would allow service members to voluntarily exempt
themselves from such service. The Secretary shall at a minimum
consider:
(1) The administrative burden and related costs
associated with a voluntary exemption policy;
(2) The potential impact of a voluntary exemption
policy on individual and unit morale;
(3) The potential impact of a voluntary exemption
policy on unit combat capability;
(4) The various types of family relationships that
might be considered in a voluntary exemption policy and
the numbers of service members that would be involved
within each type of relationship;
(5) The number of families and service members that
would be eligible for exemption and the number that
would be expected to execute the exemption;
(6) The various methods that might be employed by
service members to abuse the intent of a voluntarily
exemption policy and avoid their fair share exposure to
high risk operations; and
(7) The advantages and disadvantages of different
options for defining a high risk area that could be
used to implement a voluntary exemption policy.
The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report of
his findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 31, 2006.
State and Federal Agency Partnerships to Address the Post-Mobilization
Needs of Reservists and National Guardsmen and Their Families
The committee recognizes that to effectively provide for
the needs of national guard and reserve personnel and their
families following demobilization requires the cooperative
efforts of both state and federal agencies. One such
cooperative effort results from a memorandum of understanding
between the State of Washington, the U.S. Department of
Veterans' Affairs, the U.S. Department of Labor and the state
veterans' service providers. As a result, there will be a
systematic, comprehensive transition service provided when
service members return from active duty. All national guard
units will be required to conduct a family activity day within
three to six months following return from Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom or Noble Eagle. The family
activity day will bring together the experts from the various
federal and state agencies with service members and their
families to provide information in such areas as family
support, education and assistance, veterans benefits and
entitlements, employment assistance, and medical support,
including mental health services. The memorandum of
understanding will also create long-term community support
services, including an Adopt an Armory program, a family
support network, employee and training services and data
sharing agreements. The State of Washington is looking at ways
to expand this program to all reserve component personnel in
the state. The committee commends this cooperative effort and
urges the Secretary of Defense, heads of other federal agencies
and other states to consider a similar approach to improve and
expand post mobilization services for our nation's citizen
soldiers and their families.
Study of Genocide and Its Cultural, Ethical and Moral Impact
The systematic elimination of entire ethnic groups
continues in today's modern world. The committee recognizes
that officers of the Armed Forces are encountering genocide
during operational deployments and believes that officers
should be prepared to deal with its cultural, ethical and moral
effects. The study of historical events like the Holocaust
provides important opportunities to learn about genocide and
its impact on the humanity. The committee notes that there are
a number of organizations, such as the Auschwitz Jewish Center,
that already provide cadets and midshipmen at the military
academies with opportunities to learn about the cultural,
ethical and moral impact genocide has on today's society. The
committee commends this educational effort and believes that it
should be continued.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Section 501--Temporary Increase in Percentage Limits on Reduction of
Time-In-Grade Requirements for Retirement in Grade Upon Voluntary
Retirement
This section would increase the percentage of lieutenant
colonels (or commanders in the Navy) and colonels (or captains
in the Navy) that the secretary of a military department, when
authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may approve for
retirement with less than three years time-in-grade from two
percent to four percent of the officers authorized in that
grade for that fiscal year within the respective service. The
authority provided to the secretaries of the military
departments in this section would begin on October 1, 2005, and
would end on December 31, 2007.
Section 502--Two-Year Renewal of Authority to Reduce Minimum
Commissioned Service Requirement for Voluntary Retirement as an Officer
This section would reestablish the authority for the
secretaries of the military departments to reduce the number of
years of service required as an officer to retire as an officer
from 10 to 8 years beginning October 1, 2005, and ending on
December 31, 2007.
Section 503--Separation at Age 64 for Reserve Component Senior Officers
This section would extend from 62 to 64 the age at which
the chiefs of the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve, and the
directors of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard
must retire.
Section 504--Improved Administration of Transitions Involving Officers
in Senior General and Flag Officer Positions
This section would improve the ability of the military
services to permit senior general and flag officers, that is
those holding three- and four-star rank, to continue to hold
their rank while in transition to a new position requiring that
or higher rank. The section would also permit a general or flag
officer whose assignment to a senior general or flag officer
position requires promotion to the three- or four-star rank to
be promoted to the higher rank at the time the officer begins
serving in the position. To facilitate these transitions, the
section would temporarily exclude for no more than 30 days the
senior general and flag officers moving to positions of equal
rank from counting against the statutory limits on senior
general and flag officers. If the transition is not completed
within the 30 days, the officer would revert to his or her
lower permanent grade. The section would also eliminate, with
respect to senior general and flag officer positions, the
frocking authority of the Secretary of Defense. That authority
permits an officer, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
who has been ordered to or is serving in a higher graded
position to wear the grade, but not receive the pay of the
higher position.
Section 505--Consolidation of Grade Limitations on Officer Assignment
and Insignia Practice Known as Frocking
This section would establish one limit of 85 on the number
of promotable colonels, Navy captains, brigadier generals and
rear admirals (lower half) who would be authorized to be
frocked, that is wear the rank and insignia of the next higher
grade prior to their date of promotion. The establishment of a
single limit will provide increased flexibility in managing
frocked officers. Current law establishes a separate limit of
30 for the number of brigadier generals and rear admirals
(lower half) who can be frocked, and 55 for the numbers of
colonels and Navy captains who can be frocked.
Section 506--Authority for Designation of a General/Flag Officer
Position on the Joint Staff To Be Held by Reserve Component General or
Flag Officer on Active Duty
This section would increase from 10 to 11 the number of
general or flag officers positions that the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff can designate to be held only by reserve
general and flag officers on active duty. Under current law, 10
of those positions must be designated on the staffs of the
combatant commands. This section would permit one position to
be designated on the Joint Staff.
Section 507--Authority to Retain Permanent Professors at the Naval
Academy Beyond 30 Years of Active Commissioned Service
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
retain beyond 30 years of active commissioned service Navy and
Marine Corps officers who are on active duty as permanent
professors at the U.S. Naval Academy. Depending on an officer's
grade, the statutory years-of-service-retirement point for
military officers is 28 or 30 years. While this section also
would permit the Secretary of the Navy to determine how long a
permanent professor remained on active duty beyond 30 years of
service, this section would require retirement of the officer
at age 64. This section would provide to the Secretary of the
Navy the same authority for retaining permanent professors as
is provided to the secretaries of the Army and Air Force for
permanent professors at the U.S. Military Academy and U.S. Air
Force Academy, respectively. The committee expects that the
Secretary would continue permanent professors on active duty
beyond 28 years only at the recommendation of the
Superintendent and with the concurrence of the Chief of Naval
Operations or Commandant of the Marine Corps, depending on the
service of the officer concerned.
Section 508--Authority for Appointment of Coast Guard Flag Officer as
Chief of Staff to the President
This section would amend title 14, United States Code, to
authorize the President, by and with the consent of the Senate,
to appoint a Coast Guard flag officer to be the chief of staff
to the President.
Section 509--Clarification of Time for Receipt of Statutory Selection
Board Communications
This section would clarify that regular and reserve
officers intending to provide written communications to
selection boards must submit those communications so that they
arrive no later than the 11:59 p.m. on the day before the date
the board convenes. Current law provides that communications
from officers must reach selection boards no later than the
date the board convenes.
Section 510--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.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Section 511--Use of Reserve Montgomery GI Bill Benefits and Benefits
for Mobilized Members of the Selected Reserve and National Guard for
Payments for Licensing or Certification Tests
This section would authorize service members eligible for
the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill benefits to use up to $2,000 of
their benefits to pay for a licensing or certification test.
Section 512--Modifications to the New Reserve Education Benefit for
Certain Active Service in Support of Contingency Operations
This section would clarify that service members who were
mobilized and served on active duty in support of a contingency
operation on or after September 11, 2001, are eligible for
benefits under the education assistance program for reserve
component members supporting contingency operations authorized
in section 527 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
The section would also clarify that service members remain
eligible for benefits under the program with a break in service
in the Selected Reserve of less than 90 days, if the members
continues to serve in the Ready Reserve.
Section 513--Military Technicians (Dual Status) Mandatory Separation
This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to
implement policies allowing a military technician (dual status)
to serve beyond a mandatory removal date for officers, or
beyond a years-of-service limitation for enlisted personnel,
until reaching age 60 and attaining eligibility for an
unreduced annuity.
Section 514--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 New
York State surrounding New York City and in Arlington County,
Virginia, following the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001.
Section 515--Use of National Guard to Provide Military Support to
Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies for Domestic Counter-Terrorism
Activities
The section would authorize the governor of a state to
order personnel of that state's national guard to active duty
under title 32, United States Code, to provide military support
to a civilian law enforcement agency, on a reimbursable basis,
for domestic counter-terrorism activities. The section would
define domestic counter-terrorism as measures taken to prevent,
deter and respond to terrorism within a state. The section also
would require that the chief of the National Guard Bureau, or
the designee of the chief in each state, accept the monetary
reimbursements and to deposit them into appropriations accounts
used to fund the activities under this section.
Subtitle C--Education and Training
Section 521--Repeal of Limitation on Amount of Financial Assistance
Under Reserve Officers' Training Corps Scholarship Programs
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments to pay the costs of room and board for
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship students
when those costs exceed the cost of tuition, fees, books and
laboratory expenses. Current law allows ROTC scholarships to
cover the cost of room and board, but limits the amount of room
and board to the cost of tuition, fees, books, and laboratory
expenses.
Section 522--Increased Enrollment for Eligible Defense Industry
Employees in the Defense Product Development Program at Naval
Postgraduate School
This section would increase by 15 the number of defense
industry civilians who could enroll in the Naval Postgraduate
School's defense product development program and expand the
program to include systems engineering curricula.
Section 523--Payment of Expenses to Obtain Professional Credentials
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast
Guard when it is operating as a service of the Navy, to pay the
expenses for service members to obtain an accreditation, a
license, a certification, or other State or professionally
imposed credential so long as the credential is not a
prerequisite for appointment in the armed forces.
Section 524--Authority for National Defense University Award of Degree
of Master of Science in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy
This section would authorize the president of the National
Defense University to award a masters of science degree in
joint campaign planning and strategy to graduates of the
university who fulfill the requirements of the program of the
Joint Advanced Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff
College. This section would authorize the award of the degree
to qualified graduates after May 2005.
Section 525--One-year Extension of Authority to Use Appropriated Funds
to Provide Recognition Items for Recruitment and Retention of Certain
Reserve Component Personnel
This section would extend for one year, to December 31,
2006, the authority of the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide items of modest value to
members of the Army Reserve and Army and Air National Guard,
and to their families, in recognition of their service or
substantial activities in support of the Army Reserve and
National Guard.
Section 526--Report on Rationale and Plans of the Navy to Provide
Enlisted Members an Opportunity to Obtain Graduate Degrees
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 on the plans of the
Secretary to provide enlisted members of the Navy with
opportunities to pursue graduate degree programs. The committee
understands that the budget request contained a proposal that
would have authorized a pilot program at the Naval Postgraduate
School to award graduate degrees to enlisted personnel. The
committee believes that before it could approve such an
initiative, far more perspective is required on how the award
of graduate degrees fits into an integrated, progressive,
coordinated and systematic approach to enlisted career
development and professional education.
Section 527--Increase in Annual Limit on Number of Reserve Officers'
Training Corps Scholarships Under Army Reserve and National Guard
Program
This section would increase from 208 to 416 the maximum
number of Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarships the
Army may provide to cadets desiring to remain in the reserve
components. This increase will help the Army Reserve and Army
National Guard meet manning requirements.
Section 528--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
direct the National Defense University to ensure that field
study visits to China and Taiwan are integral components of the
CAPSTONE program carried out by the University.
Section 529--Sense of Congress Concerning Establishment of National
College of Homeland Security
This section would express the Sense of Congress that the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, should establish within the National Defense
University an educational institution to be known as the
National College of Homeland Security.
Subtitle D--General Service Requirements
Section 531--Uniform Enlistment Standards for the Armed Forces
This section would clarify who may be lawfully enlisted and
would standardize enlistment eligibility criteria for the armed
services.
Section 532--Increase in Maximum Term of Original Enlistment in Regular
Component
This section would increase the maximum duration of an
enlistment in a regular component from six years to eight years
Section 533--Members Completing Statutory Initial Military Service
Obligation
This section would require every person at the commencement
of their initial period of military service to be provided with
the date on which that initial military service obligation
ends. The section also would require the secretaries of the
military departments to notify members of the Individual Ready
Reserve of the date when their initial military service
obligation ends and to provide those members before that date
an opportunity, if they are qualified, to continue voluntarily
in the Ready Reserve or to transfer voluntarily to an active
component. Finally, the section would prohibit the involuntary
mobilization, or a recall to active duty, that commences after
the expiration of the military service obligation of members of
the Individual Ready Reserve.
Section 534--Extension of Qualifying Service for Initial Military
Service Under National Call to Service Program
This section would clarify that mandatory service
obligations in the selected reserve specified for participants
in the national call to service program apply to officers who
were initially enlisted under the program for the purpose of
entering an officer training program.
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to Casualties
Section 541--Requirement for Members of the Armed Forces to Designate a
Person To Be Authorized to Direct the Disposition of the Member's
Remains
This section would require the secretary concerned to
establish a program for service members to designate an
individual to direct the disposition of the members' remains
should they die while in a military status. The section would
require that service members shall make such a designation upon
entering the service or deploying in support of a contingency
operation after a 30 day period following the date of
enactment. The remainder of the force would be required to make
such a designation after a 180 day period following date of
enactment. The committee believes that this section is required
to avoid challenges to the Department of Defense policy on the
disposition of remains such as those that occurred as a result
of recent family disputes concerning the disposition of remains
of service members who died while serving in support of
Operations Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The
committee strongly encourages the secretaries concerned to
carefully explain to service members the serious implications
of their designation of a person to manage the disposition of
their remains each and every time the service member is
afforded the opportunity to confirm or modify the designation.
Section 542--Enhanced Program of Casualty Assistance Officers and
Seriously Injured/Ill Assistance Officers
This section would permanently codify the requirement to
appoint a casualty assistance officer (CAO) to provide
surviving family members of service members who die
information, counseling, advice on obtaining information and
services, administrative assistance, and advocacy
representation when dealing with military authorities. The
section would also establish a new requirement to appoint a
seriously injured/ill assistance officer (SIAO) to provide the
same range of services to a service member and the member's
family who are determined under criteria established by the
Secretary of Defense to be seriously injured or ill. In
addition, the section would require that both CAOs and SIAOs
are:
(1) Continuously assigned to assist families
regardless of location until the Secretary determines
that the families are no longer in need of assistance;
(2) Trained using standards for performance of duties
specified by the Secretary; and
(3) Monitored by the secretaries of the military
departments to ensure that their performance meets the
training standards.
The committee has become increasingly concerned that the
military departments are not adequately training casualty
assistance officers and monitoring their performance. The
committee has received anecdotal evidence that suggests
consistent standards governing the performance of CAOs have not
been established and the secretaries of the military
departments are not adequately training and monitoring the
performance of CAOs to ensure that the highest performance
standards are consistently executed. Areas of particular
concern to the committee include:
(1) Additional training on the proper techniques and
language to be used by CAOs during initial death
notifications;
(2) Consideration of the need for mandatory
involvement of the service member's unit commander or
other senior commander, professional grief counselors,
and chaplains during initial death notifications;
(3) Consideration of minimum experience requirements
for CAOs;
(4) Consideration of establishing three years after
the death of the service member as the minimum period
of assistance that should be provided to surviving
family members;
(5) Consideration of establishing a list of automatic
actions required by CAOs for such assistance as
providing the service member's awards and decorations
with explanations;
(6) Consideration of establishing a cadre of
experienced professionals to assist the CAO in
presenting the detailed briefing on benefits that
follows initial notification and to assist the CAO in
answering questions that follow the benefits briefing;
and
(7) Consideration of establishing annual mandatory
meetings to ensure that surviving families have no
unanswered questions for a minimum of three years after
the death of the service member.
Section 543--Standards and Guidelines for Department of Defense
Programs to Assist Wounded and Injured Members
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
examine the service programs to provide assistance to service
members who incur severe wounds or injuries, to include the
Army Disabled Soldier Support Program and the Marine for Life
Injured Support Program, and develop the standards and
guidelines necessary to coordinate and standardize the service
programs with the activities of the Severely Injured Joint
support Operations Center of the Department of Defense. The
Secretary would be required to publish regulations to implement
the standards and guidelines within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Section 544--Authority for Members on Active Duty With Disabilities to
Participate in Paralympic Games
The committee recognizes that there are increasing numbers
of service members with physical disabilities remaining in the
military upon completion of their medical rehabilitation. The
committee further recognizes that these young men and women are
often at the peak of physical conditioning with the potential
of being competitive in the World Class Athlete Program which
prepares members of the armed forces for approved international
athletic competition. The committee notes that military
personnel are authorized to compete in the Olympic Games and
believes that a similar authorization is appropriate to permit
service members with disabilities who remain on active duty to
participate at a similar level of athletic competition.
Therefore, this section would authorize the Secretary of
Defense to permit members of the armed forces, if eligible, to
participate in the Paralympic Games and the qualifying events
and preparatory competition for those games.
Subtitle F--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters
Section 551--Clarification of Authority of Military Legal Assistance
Counsel to Provide Military Legal Assistance Without Regard to
Licensing Requirements
This section would clarify section 1044 of title 10, United
States Code, so that licensed Department of Defense military
legal assistance officers would have the authority to practice
law in connection with their official duties independent of
state regulations for those states where they are unlicensed.
Section 552--Use of Teleconferencing in Administrative Sessions of
Courts-Martial
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments to use video-teleconferencing or similar
technologies during certain pre-trial events, such as
arraignments, guilty plea inquiries, advisements of right,
motion sessions and various other administrative tasks when
counsel is physically present with the accused.
Section 553--Extension of Statute of Limitations for Murder, Rape and
Child Abuse Offenses Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
This section would amend the statute of limitations for
murder, rape, rape of a child and child abuse. It would include
all murders in the class of offenses that have no statute
oflimitations and would clarify that rape is an offense with an
unlimited statute of limitations. This section would also extend the
statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses. Current law
precludes prosecution in these offenses after the child attains the age
of twenty-five. This section would allow prosecutions during the life
of the child/victim or within five years from the date of the offense,
whichever is greater. In addition, this section would expand the
definition of ``child abuse offense'' to include pornography involving
a child and add kidnapping of a child to the list of offenses covered
in the life of the child/victim statute of limitations.
Section 554--Offense of Stalking Under the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice
This section would establish stalking of another individual
as an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
section would model the Uniform Code of Military Justice after
the Federal Model Anti-stalking Code for the states by
requiring a course of conduct to include emotional distress,
specifically including sexual assault as one example of bodily
harm, and including members of the victim's immediate family or
intimate partner of the individual.
The committee understands that the definitions of the
section are to be included in the Manual for Courts-Martial.
However, the committee is concerned that the definitions
accurately convey the behaviors associated with the offense of
stalking. For example, the committee urges the Department of
Defense to include, within its definition of ``threatening
acts,'' any course of unwanted communication.
Section 555--Rape, Sexual Assault, and Other Sexual Misconduct Under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice
The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), required the Secretary
of Defense to propose changes regarding sexual offenses in the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to conform more
closely to other federal laws and regulations that address
sexual assault. This section would amend section 920 of title
10, United States Code, by aligning the statutory language of
sexual assault law under the UCMJ with federal law under
sections 2241 through 2247 of title 18, United States Code.
This section would amend article 120 of the UCMJ to provide a
series of graded offenses relating to rape, sexual assault and
other sexual misconduct, based on the presence or absence of
aggravating factors. The section would also provide a precise
description of each offense and set interim maximum punishments
based on the degree of the offense.
Subtitle G--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for Defense
Dependents Education
Section 561--Enrollment in Overseas Schools of Defense Dependents'
Education System of Children of Citizens or Nationals of the United
States Hired in Overseas Areas as Full-time Department of Defense
Employees
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide dependent children of full-time, locally hired
Department of Defense (DOD) employees who are U.S. citizens or
nationals a space-required, tuition free education in DOD
Dependents Schools overseas.
Section 562--Assistance to 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 had military dependent students
comprising at least 20 percent of the students in average daily
attendance during a year. The section would also provide $10.0
million of 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 563--Continuation of Impact Aid Assistance on Behalf of
Dependents of Certain Members Despite Change in Status of Member
This section would temporarily adjust the process for
computing the amount of funding provided by the Department of
Education to certain local educational agencies heavily
impacted by dependents of military personnel. The adjustment,
limited to school year 2005-2006, would require that certain
children continue be counted as a child enrolled in school when
computing the average daily attendance, which is a key
component of the amount of aid the school might receive. Such
children include, those who attend the school but who no longer
live on a military base because both parents are deployed, or
are children who temporarily reside in military base housing
following the death on active duty of a military parent.
Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards
Section 565--Cold War Victory Medal
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
design and issue a Cold War Victory Medal to person who served
honorably in the armed forces for a minimum of 180 days during
the period beginning on September 2, 1945 and ending on
December 26, 1991.
Section 566--Establishment of Combat Medevac Badge
This section would require the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force to design and issue a Combat Medevac Badge
to be awarded to service members who served on or after June
25, 1950 as pilots or crew members on helicopter medical
evacuation ambulances.
Section 567--Eligibility for Operation Enduring Freedom Campaign Medal
This section would establish September 11, 2001 as the
beginning date of Operation Enduring Freedom for the purpose of
awarding the Operation Enduring Freedom campaign medal.
Subtitle I--Other Matters
Section 571--Extension of Waiver Authority of Secretary of Education
With Respect to Student Financial Assistance During a War or Other
Military Operation or National Emergency
This section would extend for two years, through September
30, 2007, the authority provided by the Higher Education Relief
Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-76).
Under this authority, the Secretary of Education may waive or
modify any requirement or regulation applicable to the student
financial assistance programs with respect to an affected
individual who:
(1) Is serving on active duty during a war or other
military operation or national emergency;
(2) Is performing qualifying national guard duty
during a war, operation, or emergency;
(3) Resides or is employed in an area that is
declared a disaster area by any federal, state, or
local official in connection with a national emergency;
or
(4) Suffered direct economic hardship as a direct
result of a war or other military operation or national
emergency.
Section 572--Adoption Leave for Members of the Armed Forces Adopting
Children
This section would permit a member of the armed forces who
is authorized reimbursement for qualified adoption expenses to
be granted up to 21 days leave annually in connection with the
adoption.
Section 573--Report on Need for a Personnel Plan for Linguists in the
Armed Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
review the career paths available to officer and enlisted
linguists to determine if a change in the career management of
linguists would assist them in achieving their full linguistic
and analytical potential. The section would also require the
Secretary to report his findings, results, and conclusions not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services.
Section 574--Ground Combat and Other Exclusion Policies
This section would codify the Department of Defense policy,
issued in 1994, that set out limitations on the assignment of
female members of the Armed Services to combat units.
Specifically, the section would prohibit the assignment of
women to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is
to engage in direct combat on the ground. The section also
would codify the definition of direct ground combat. As under
the Department's current policy, the section would permit the
Secretary of Defense, or the secretaries of the military
services to further exclude female members of the Armed Forces
from the assignments to units and positions based on the
following factors: Collocation with a direct ground combat
unit; performance of long-range reconnaissance and Special
Operations missions; prohibitive costs of berthing and privacy
arrangements; or, job-related physical requirements that
exclude the vast majority of female members. The section would
also require the continued closure of military occupational
specialties relating to military ground operations that the
secretaries of the military services had closed to the
assignment of women as of May 18, 2005. The section would also
require the Secretary of Defense, or secretaries of the
military services, as appropriate, to notify the Committee on
Armed Services in the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services in the House when opening previously closed positions
to the assignment of female members of the Armed Forces.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATIONS AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to support strong and flexible
compensation and benefits programs needed to recruit and retain
a quality force in a wartime environment. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an across-the-board pay raise of 3.1
percent, increases in the maximum amounts that may be paid for
certain enlistment and retention bonuses and special pays,
expanded eligibility criteria to add flexibility to certain
enlistment and retention bonuses and special pays, and
restructured compensation programs to provide stronger
incentives for enlistment and retention of members in reserve
components.
The committee remains committed to protecting and enhancing
military exchange and commissary benefits. Accordingly, the
committee has included provisions that would protect
commissaries from unfair competition from contractors, ensure
that the cost of shipping exchange products for sale to
overseas members and their families is not added to the price
of goods paid by military consumers, and facilitate efficient
management practices by the military exchange systems.
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Commissary Agency Produce Procurement Test
The committee is impressed with the early results of the
Defense Commissary Agency's (DeCA) six-month test program to
procure produce through a small business contractor for 20
stores in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia
beginning in January 2005. The test employs the private
sector's best business practices and has already produced
evidence of more efficient distribution, improved quality,
reduced procurement costs for DeCA, and lower prices for the
military patron. The committee commends DeCA and the Department
of Defense for their innovative initiative and their desire to
improve service and quality for the military consumer. The
committee encourages managers at DeCA to continue the test
program and evaluate the results expeditiously. If the test
program proves successful, the committee would be receptive to
swift adoption of the policies and procedures of the program
throughout the DeCA system. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report of his findings and
recommendations regarding the produce procurement test program
by March 31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services.
Hooked-on-Fishing/Not-on-Drugs Pilot Program
The committee recognizes that the current operational tempo
is placing significant stress on the families of military
personnel. The committee believes that the morale, welfare, and
recreation programs operated by installation commanders can
help to alleviate the stress of service life in today's
environment by facilitating family-oriented activities. The
committee observes that fishing offers members and their
families a challenging outdoor activity that can be enjoyed by
all family members.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consult
with the Future Fisherman Foundation and the Armed Forces
Foundation to continue to explore options for implementing the
Hooked-on-Fishing/Not on Drugs program at military
installations. The committee notes that a modest pilot program
could establish this very effective and low cost program at as
many as 20 military installations in the first year. The
committee is convinced that these programs would prove to be
highly popular in the military community and that the Secretary
would choose to rapidly expand the program to target those
installations with the highest deployment rates. The committee
strongly recommends that the Secretary seek the assistance of
the Future Fisherman Foundation and the Armed Forces
Foundation. With the assistance of these organizations, the
committee is confident that this valuable program can be
established at over 100 installations in just 3 years. The
committee encourages the Secretary to thoroughly examine the
Hooked-on-Fishing/Not on Drugs program and submit a report on
his findings and recommendations by March 31, 2006, to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2006
This section would increase basic pay for members of the
armed forces by 3.1 percent. This raise would continue to
fulfill Congress' commitment to enhanced pay raises for the
armed forces and would reduce the pay gap between military and
private sector pay increases from 5.1 percent to 4.6 percent.
Section 602--Additional Pay for Permanent Military Professors at United
States Naval Academy With Over 36 Years of Service
This section would allow permanent military professors at
the United States Naval Academy with over 36 years service to
receive the same $250-per-month pay increase that such
professors receive at the other service academies.
Section 603--Basic Pay Rates for Reserve Component Members Selected to
Attend Military Service Academy Preparatory Schools
This section would clarify that reserve component members
who are attending military service academy preparatory schools
shall be paid at the rate prescribed for the member's pay grade
unless the standard rate of compensation provided to cadets and
midshipmen is greater. The section would establish a
compensation policy for reserve members that is consistent with
the policy applicable to active component members.
Section 604--Clarification of Restriction on Compensation for
Correspondence Courses
This section would clarify that national guard members as
well as other members of reserve components are not authorized
to be compensated for work associated with participation in a
correspondence course of a uniformed service.
Section 605--Permanent Authority for Supplemental Subsistence Allowance
for Low-Income Members with Dependents
This section would make permanent the authority for the
secretary concerned to pay a supplemental subsistence allowance
to members whose family income level would qualify that family
to receive government food stamps.
Section 606--Basic Allowance for Housing for Reserve Members
This section would eliminate the requirement to pay a
reduced rate of basic allowance for housing to reserve
component members when mobilized to serve on active duty for
periods greater than 30 days and less than 140 days. Such
reserve members would receive the full amount of basic
allowance for housing authorized for similarly situated active
component members at their permanent duty location. The section
would also clarify that full basic allowance for quarters would
be paid to reserve component members when mobilized to serve on
active duty for less than 30 days in connection with a
contingency operation.
Section 607--Overseas Cost of Living Allowance
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to
continue to pay a family residing overseas a cost of living
allowance notwithstanding the reassignment of the service
member that is the sponsor of the family when it is in the best
interests of the government and the family. The section would
also redefine the standard used to justify reimbursement to
service members for expenses incurred overseas but not
typically in the United States from an expense that is a one-
time payment to an expense that is unusual and extraordinary.
Reoccurring expenses that meet the new standard would be
permitted for reimbursement.
Section 608--Income Replacement Payments for Reserves Experiencing
Extended and Frequent Mobilization for Active Duty Service
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to pay
involuntarily mobilized reserve members on a monthly basis the
amount necessary to replace the income differential between
their regular military compensation (RMC) plus any special or
incentive pays and allowances paid to the member on a monthly
basis and the average monthly income received by the member
during the twelve months preceding the month during which the
member was mobilized. This section would define the income
differential as the amount by which the member's average
monthly income prior to mobilization exceeds the member's RMC
plus any special or incentive pays and allowances paid to the
member on a monthly basis. Reserve members with private sector
income that exceeds their active duty income would be eligible
for the income replacement payment for any full month following
the date that the member completes 18 continuous months of
service on active duty or 24 months on active duty during the
previous 60 months, or for any month during a mobilization that
occurs within 6 months of the member's last active duty tour.
Payments would be limited to a minimum of $50 each month and a
maximum of $3,000 each month.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special Incentive Pay
Section 611--Extension or Resumption of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
This section would extend or resume the authority for the
Selected Reserve reenlistment 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, 2006.
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay Authorities for
Certain 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, the accession bonus for
pharmacy officers until December 31, 2006. The provision would
also extend the authority for repayment of educational loans
for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected
Reserve until January 1, 2007.
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, 2006.
Section 614--One-year Extension of Other Bonus and Special 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, and the accession bonus for new officers in
critical skills until December 31, 2006.
Section 615--Expansion of Eligibility of Dental Officers for Additional
Special Pay
This section would eliminate the restriction barring
military dentists from being paid additional special pay while
they are undergoing dental internship or residency training.
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate Authorized for Hardship
Duty Pay
This section would increase the maximum monthly rate of
hardship duty pay from $300 to $750.
Section 617--Flexible Payment of Assignment Incentive Pay
This section would authorize assignment incentive pay to be
paid on a monthly basis, in a lump sum or in installments other
than monthly.
Section 618--Active-Duty Reenlistment Bonus
This section would increase the maximum selective
reenlistment bonus that may be paid to an active component
member from $60,000 to $90,000. The section would also extend
the maximum years of service beyond which a reenlistment bonus
may not be awarded from 16 years to 20 years and would
authorize the secretary concerned to waive eligibility criteria
established in law during war and national emergency.
Section 619--Reenlistment Bonus for Members of Selected Reserve
The section would extend the maximum years of service
beyond which a reenlistment bonus may not be awarded from 16
years to 20 years and would authorize the secretary concerned
to waive eligibility criteria established in law during war and
national emergency.
Section 620--Combination of Affiliation and Accession Bonuses for
Service in the Selected Reserve
This section would set the maximum amount that may be paid
to members who affiliate with selected reserve units to $15,000
and would specify new installment or lump sum payment options.
The section would also authorize an accession bonus for
enlistment in the selected reserve with the same $15,000
maximum and installment or lump sum payment options authorized
for the affiliation bonus.
Section 621--Eligibility Requirements for Prior Service Enlistment
Bonus
This section would eliminate the requirement that members
with prior military service must first complete their military
service obligation before being eligible to receive a bonus for
enlisting in the selected reserve.
Section 622--Increase in Authorized Maximum Amount of Enlistment Bonus
This section would increase the maximum amount of the
enlistment bonus that may be paid to new recruits from $20,000
to $30,000.
Section 623--Discretion of Secretary of Defense to Authorize
Retroactive Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay
The section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
retroactively designate the period during which duty in a
specific area would qualify the member to receive hostile fire
or imminent danger pay.
Section 624--Increase in Maximum Bonus Amount for Nuclear-Qualified
Officers Extending Period of Active Duty
This section would increase the maximum amount of the bonus
paid to nuclear-qualified officer who extend their active duty
service from $25,000 to $30,000.
Section 625--Increase in Maximum Amount of Nuclear Career Annual
Incentive Bonus for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Trained While Serving as
Enlisted Members
This section would increase the maximum amount of the
nuclear career annual incentive bonus from $10,000 to $14,000.
Section 626--Uniform Payment of Foreign Language Proficiency Pay to
Eligible Reserve Component Members and Regular Component Members
This section would establish one authority for foreign
language proficiency pay that specifies the same maximum amount
and installment or lump sum payment options for both active
component and reserve component members.
Section 627--Retention Bonus for Members Qualified in Certain Critical
Skills or Satisfying Other Eligibility Criteria
This section would authorize the critical skill retention
bonus to be paid to reserve component members and would
authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish such other
criteria for payment of the bonus as the Secretary considers
appropriate in addition to the critical skill criteria. The
section would also eliminate the prohibition of payment for
service beyond 25 years for members serving in special
operations skills designated as critical and members qualified
for duty in connection with supervision, operation, and
maintenance of naval nuclear power plants.
Section 628--Availability of Critical-Skills Accession Bonus for
Persons Enrolled in Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Who Are
Obtaining Nursing Degrees
This section would authorize nursing students enrolled in
Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs to receive a critical
skills accession bonus of $5,000 or less under section 324 of
title 10, United States Code so long as they have completed the
second year of an accredited baccalaureate degree program and
they execute an agreement to serve on active duty as a
commissioned officer in the Army Nurse Corps. The section would
clarify that agreements paid under this subsection are
retroactively authorized if executed on or after October 5,
2004.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Section 641--Authorized Absences of Members for Which Lodging Expenses
at Temporary Duty Location May be Paid
This section would expand the circumstances under which
members may continue to receive the lodging portion of their
temporary duty per diem during absences from the temporary duty
location to include absences approved by the member's unit
commander in addition to authorized leave.
Section 642--Extended Period for Selection of Home for Travel and
Transportation Allowances for Dependents of Deceased Member
This section would increase the period of time allowed for
surviving family members of service members who die while on
active duty to select a residence for which they may be receive
travel and transportation allowances from one year to three
years after the death of the member.
Section 643--Transportation of Family Members Incident to Repatriation
of Members Held Captive
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to
provide travel and transportation allowances for three family
members of a member of the uniformed services on active duty
who was held captive or was otherwise missing to the location
where the members has been repatriated.
Section 644--Increased Weight Allowances for Shipment of Household
Goods of Senior Noncommissioned Officers
This section would increase the authorized weight allowance
for the shipment of household goods for members with and
without dependents serving in enlisted grades of E-9, E-8, and
E-7.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits
Section 651--Monthly Disbursement to States of State Income Tax
Withheld From Retired or Retainer Pay
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay
state officials monies voluntarily withheld from retired pay
for tax purposes on a monthly basis and not a quarterly basis
as provided in current law.
Section 652--Revision to Eligibility for Nonregular Service Retirement
After Establishing Eligibility for Regular Retirement
This section would allow service members who are qualified
for active duty retirement to continue to serve in an active
reserve status and remain eligible for a reserve retirement at
age 60 without being required to be formally retired under the
applicable active duty authority as required by current law.
This section would eliminate an unnecessary administrative
burden for service members who are qualified for both active
duty and reserve retirement.
Section 653--Denial of Military Funeral Honors in Certain Cases
This section would expand the reasons for denying military
honors at the funeral or burial service of a member or former
member by prohibiting the secretary of a military department
from providing such honors when the circumstances surrounding
the death of the individual or other circumstances involving
the individual as specified by the Secretary of Defense would
bring discredit to the military department concerned.
Section 654--Child Support for Certain Minor Children of Retirement-
Eligible Members Convicted of Domestic Violence Resulting in Death of
Child's Other Parent
This section would authorize the payment of child support
from a member's disposable retired pay to a dependent child of
the member when the member's retired pay eligibility has been
terminated because of the member's abuse of a spouse that
resulted in the death of the spouse. The dependent child would
become eligible to receive child support after effective
service of a court order providing for such payment.
Section 655--Concurrent Receipt of Veterans Disability Compensation and
Military Retired Pay
This section would curtail the 10-year phased
implementation of full concurrent receipt of veterans
disability compensation and military retired pay for military
retirees receiving veterans disability compensation at the rate
payable for 100 percent disability by reason of a determination
of individual unemployability and would authorize such retirees
to receive full concurrent receipt of veterans disability
compensation and military retired pay on October 1, 2009, four
years and three months earlier then scheduled.
Section 656--Military Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiaries under
Insurable Interest Coverage
This section would allow veterans who participate in the
Survivor Benefit Plan and elect the insurable interest coverage
to rename their insurable interest if their beneficiary dies.
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits
Section 661--Increase in Authorized Level of Supplies and Services
Procurement From Overseas Exchange Stores
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
increase the maximum amount that may be paid to exchange
services to procure goods and services overseas for use by U.S.
military forces from $50,000 to $100,000 per contract.
Section 662--Requirements for Private Operation of Commissary Store
Functions
This section would establish a moratorium on studies to
compare the cost effectiveness of commissary operations
employing federal civilian employees and such operations
employing private sector employees through December 31, 2010.
The section would provide the Defense Commissary Agency the
opportunity to reengineer their workforce to increase
effectiveness and efficiency prior to competing with private
sector entities.
Section 663--Provision of Information Technology Services for
Accommodations Provided by Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities for
Wounded Members of the Armed Forces and Their Families
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to
provide information technology equipment and Internet access to
service members and their families residing in facilities
operated by nonappropriated funds while the member receives
medical treatment.
Section 664--Provision of and Payment for Overseas Transportation
Services for Commissary and Exchange Supplies
This section would mandate that appropriated funds be used
to pay for all expenses to ship goods for sale to service
members and their families by commissaries and exchanges at
overseas locations. The committee is extremely disappointed
that the budget request would reduce to $66.4 million the
funding for Army support of second destination transportation
of goods shipped to overseas Army and Air Force Exchange
Service (AAFES) stores. The committee believes that this
reduction to approximately one-half of the programmed
requirement for fiscal year 2006 will result in either
increased prices for military consumers overseas, a greatly
reduced contribution to morale, welfare, and recreation
accounts from the AAFES profits, or a reduction in the quality
of AAFES services and facilities. The committee considers any
of these potential consequences unacceptable.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the addition of $65.0
million to Army operations and maintenance accounts to support
second destination transportation expenses in support of AAFES.
Section 665--Compensatory Time Off for Certain Nonappropriated Fund
Employees
This section would authorize managers to grant
nonappropriated fund employees compensatory time off instead of
overtime pay for overtime work when requested by the employee.
This section would make the nonappropriated fund personnel
system rules on overtime pay and compensatory time off
consistent with similar rules within the federal civilian
personnel system.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 671--Inclusion of Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Among Senior Enlisted Members of the Armed
Forces
This section would add the Senior Enlisted Advisor for the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the list of senior
enlisted positions designated to receive the highest level of
pay for an enlisted member effective on the date on which an
enlisted member is appointed to serve in that position. The
section would also specify that the enlisted member appointed
to the position of Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff is authorized to receive a personal
money allowance, to receive the pay associated with the
position while hospitalized or while on terminal leave, and to
receive retired pay based on the pay associated with the
position.
Section 672--Special and Incentive Pays Considered for Saved Pay Upon
Appointment of Members as Officers
This section would clarify that the pay and allowances of
an enlisted or warrant officer grade formerly held by an
officer may continue to be paid to the officer only when the
officer continues to perform the duty that creates the
entitlement to or the eligibility for the pay or allowance.
Section 673--Repayment of Unearned Portion of Bonuses, Special Pays,
and Educational Benefits
This section would consolidate the authority outlining the
policy and procedures for repayment of unearned portions of
bonuses, special pays, and educational benefits into one
section with legislative references to that section within the
specific authorities for 31 programs codified in title 37,
United States Code, 15 programs codified in title 10, United
States Code, and one program codified in title 14, United
States Code. The section would also clarify that thesecretary
concerned may establish for all such programs procedures for
determining the amount of the repayment required and the circumstances
under which an exception to the required repayment may be granted.
Section 674--Leave Accrual for Members Assigned to Deployable Ships or
Mobile Units or to Other Designated Duty
This section would clarify that service members assigned to
a deployable ship or mobile unit, or other designated units may
be authorized by the secretary concerned to accumulate up to
120 days of leave without having to serve on active duty for a
continuous period of 120 days.
Section 675--Army Recruiting Pilot Program to Encourage Members of the
Army to Refer Other Persons for Enlistment
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a pilot program to pay up to $1,000 in a lump sum to a
member of the armed services who persuades a person to contact
a recruiter seeking information about enlistment. The bonus
would be paid to the service member after the referred person
successfully completes basic training and individual advanced
training. The pilot program would be limited to a maximum of
1,000 bonus payments in the first year and the authority to
accept referrals would expire on December 31, 2007. Immediate
family members of persons referred and members serving in
recruiting and retention assignments would not be eligible to
participate.
Section 676--Special Compensation for Reserve Component Members Who Are
Also Tobacco Farmers Adversely Affected by Terms of Tobacco Quota
Buyout
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse reserve members who suffered reduced compensation
under the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 because
of mobilization to serve on active duty for more than 30 days.
The section would require the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, to pay members who have been a
producer of quota tobacco for at least two of the three tobacco
marketing years before the 2002 marketing year an amount equal
to 70 percent of the difference between the amount the member
will receive under the Act and the amount the member would have
likely received had the member remained a full-time producer of
quota tobacco and had not been ordered to active duty.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to be concerned about the
capability of the Defense Health Program to provide quality,
accessible health care to the members of the armed forces and
their families, along with retirees and their families. As the
nation fights the global war on terrorism, the Department of
Defense must provide health care for our wounded service
members regardless of whether their wounds are physical or
emotional. To that end, the committee recommends expanding the
capacity of the military health system to provide mental health
care to service members and their families and to assist
service members and their families to recognize potential
mental health issues. The committee also recommends several
enhancements to TRICARE Reserve Select that would expand
eligibility for members and their families and provide families
a period of transitional health care beyond the death of a
reserve member enrolled in the program. In addition, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the dental
readiness of the reserve components and recommend improvements
to ensure the dental readiness of members of the reserve
components.
The committee is steadfast in its view that planned changes
to the military health services must not disrupt beneficiary
health care, and that any changes that seek to optimize
military treatment facilities must preserve access to high
quality health care. Thus, the committee is concerned that
military service plans to convert military medical positions to
civilian positions may have a negative effect on beneficiary
access to health care. Given that concern, the committee
recommends halting further conversions until the Secretary of
Defense can certify that additional conversions would not
increase cost, decrease quality of care or access to care.
ITEMS SPECIAL INTEREST
Comptroller General Study of the Viability of TRICARE Standard
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Public Law 108-136) required the Secretary of Defense to
survey the TRICARE market areas in the United States to
determine how many health care providers are accepting new
patients under TRICARE Standard. In addition, the Comptroller
General was required, on an ongoing basis, to review the
processes, procedures, and analysis used by the Department of
Defense to determine the adequacy of the number of health care
providers that accept TRICARE Standard and submit a semiannual
report on the findings to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. The
committee recognizes that the Comptroller General was unable to
complete the required review because the Department had not
completed the mandated surveys of the TRICARE market areas.
Consequently, the data was not available for analysis by the
Comptroller General. The committee understands that the
Department has now completed the surveys and the data is now
available for review. Therefore, the committee directs the
Comptroller General to complete the review of TRICARE Standard,
as described by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), and to submit the first
semi-annual report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2006.
Cooperative Activities on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
The committee supports efforts to ensure that the needs of
our service members who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) are being met. While the Government
Accountability Office is currently conducting a study on ways
to improve services to members of the Armed Forces suffering
from PTSD, the committee remains concerned that service members
are provided with the most effective and up-to-date programs
available. The committee notes that Israeli researchers have
collected substantial information on PTSD that has allowed the
development of pre-accession psychological screenings, a
comprehensive repository of information on all veterans with
PTSD in Israel, as well as several other databases that are
used to study PTSD among soldiers and civilians. The committee
urges the Department of Defense to collaborate with the Israeli
Ministry of Defense, Military Medical Division, and the U.S.
Department of Veterans' Affairs to look at best practices to
address PTSD among service members.
Dental Readiness of the Reserve Components
The committee is concerned that improvements are needed in
addressing the dental needs of the reserve components. The
Army, for example, found that 20 percent of its citizen
soldiers arrived at mobilization sites with dental conditions
that made them non-deployable. While such individuals receive
dental care during the pre-deployment stage that allows them to
deploy, the resource intensive effort to correct dental
problems takes time away from other unit deployment
requirements. The committee took action in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) to
provide the military services additional authority to provide
dental screening and care from the time a reserve component
unit is alerted for mobilization. The committee is interested
in assessing how the secretaries of the military departments
have used that authority. Moreover, the committee is
increasingly concerned that the time available to reservists
during the post deployment process does not allow for the
completion of annual dental exams when such exams are due. This
has a direct impact on force readiness because individuals
without an annual exam cannot deploy again until that
examination is completed. To address these issues, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the pre-
and post-deployment process to determine how to best to ensure
dental readiness of the troops and develop recommendations for
inclusion in the implementation plan mandated in section 731 of
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375). The review at a minimum
should:
(1) Determine whether and to what extent the services
are utilizing current authorities to improve pre-
deployment dental readiness of their personnel;
(2) Determine whether and to what extent the services
are implementing processes and procedures to ensure
dental readiness of their personnel during post-
deployment;
(3) Determine whether annual dental exams should be
required as part of the demobilization process;
(4) Consider whether the Transitional Health Care
Benefits that are provided following separation from
active duty should include a dental benefit for members
of the reserve components as a way of improving their
dental readiness; and
(5) Make recommendations, as appropriate, for any
additional legislative authorities that are needed to
ensure the dental readiness of that Armed Forces
The committee directs the Secretary to submit this report
by April 1, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services.
Depleted Uranium
The committee remains interested in the potential health
impact depleted uranium may have on service members. The
committee recognizes that the Department of Defense and other
federal agencies have undertaken a number of studies on the
health effects of depleted uranium. The committee urges the
Department to continue its efforts to minimize exposure to the
troops, continue to ensure testing using the most sophisticated
testing methods available in the scientific community and
continue its research efforts on potential health impacts and
treatments for service members.
Eligibility for the Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Incurred as a
Result of Referral for Medical Specialty Care
The committee recognizes that beneficiaries of the military
health system often reside in remote areas with little or no
availability of specialty medical care within a reasonable
travel distance. This is particularly true for beneficiaries
residing in the flag territories of the United States who
routinely have to travel off-island for specialty care. Until
recently, Pacific Air Forces funded commercial air travel for
retirees and their family members living within their area of
responsibility. In October 2004, the Air Force discontinued
this benefit, placing the burden on the beneficiary to fund the
travel to needed specialty care. The committee believes that
specialty care should be available to beneficiaries without
placing undue financial hardship on the beneficiary. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to reassess the
decision by the Air Force to discontinue funding support, or
revise the Department of Defense's policy for reimbursement of
certain travel expenses covered in section 1074i, title 10,
United States Code, to include all eligible TRICARE
beneficiaries residing in the flag territories of the United
States.
Non-Monetary Benefits Package for the President of the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences
The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense is
seeking to appoint a new president of the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). The committee values
the service provided by USUHS and is particularly impressed
with the professionalism and dedication of USUHS graduates to
the uniformed services. For that reason, the committee is
concerned that the level of remuneration established for the
USUHS president under current law might preclude outstanding
candidates from competing for this otherwise highly prestigious
position. As such, the committee directs the Secretary to
develop a non-monetary benefits package for the person holding
the office of president of USUHS. The committee believes that
in developing that package the Secretary should evaluate
government furnished housing on the installation of the
National Naval Medical Center. The Secretary shall submit a
report of his recommendations for a non-monetary benefits
package to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2006.
Respiratory Therapists to Serve as Commissioned Officers
Respiratory therapists are trained and skilled
professionals, many of whom have completed a bachelors in
science or bachelors in arts degree as part of their training.
However, respiratory therapists, who have the comparable
educational backgrounds to other military health professionals
who hold officer commissions, can serve only in the enlisted
grades. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
assess whether respiratory therapists should serve as
commissioned officers in the armed forces, based on a review of
the requirements of the military services. If the assessment
indicates that respiratory specialists should be commissioned,
the Secretary should also discuss the pre-commissioning
requirements for respiratory therapists. The Secretary should
submit a report by April 1, 2006, to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.
Review of TRICARE Policy Regarding Treatment of Other Health Insurance
The Department of Defense policy since 1995 is that when a
TRICARE beneficiary with other health insurance incurs a health
care cost, TRICARE will act as a second payer to the other
health insurance. However, if a balance remains after the other
health insurance payment is applied, TRICARE will only pay if
the amount remaining is less than the TRICARE covered portion.
This policy results in greater out-of-pocket costs for service
members, retirees and their families. Furthermore, this policy
is inconsistent with the Department of Defense methodology for
reimbursement under TRICARE for Life, which covers all out-of-
pocket costs for TRICARE covered benefits. The committee is
concerned that the current policy may discourage beneficiaries
from using other health insurance. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the impact of
changing the policy to mirror TRICARE for Life reimbursement
for other health insurance. The report should:
(1) Determine whether the current policy unfairly
penalizes beneficiaries with other health insurance by
requiring out of pocket expenses for covered TRICARE
benefits;
(2) Compare the cost of reimbursing beneficiaries
with other health insurance all out-of- pocket costs
for TRICARE covered benefits to those beneficiaries
with only TRICARE coverage; and
(3) Determine how the current policy has impacted
customer service demand and associated costs on TRICARE
contractors.
The committee directs the Secretary to submit the report to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services by March 31, 2006.
Review of TRICARE Reimbursement Rates for Obstetrics, Gynecology,
Pediatrics and Mental Health
The committee is concerned that the CHAMPUS Maximum
Allowable Charge (CMAC) for obstetrics, gynecology, pediatrics
and mental health remain fair and equitable. CMAC rates are
based upon Medicare rates; however, Medicare does not have a
robust experience particularly in the areas of pediatrics and
obstetrics or in traumatic stress related mental health. While
there is a process to address differences in experience between
TRICARE and Medicare, there is growing concern that the
reimbursement rates need to be reviewed. The committee is
concerned that if significant inequity exists, access to these
services may decrease. In particular, children's hospitals
provide services to military children with the most complex
illnesses and treatment needs and availability of adult and
family oriented mental health services are critical to the
success of the Department of Defense post-deployment support
programs. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a study that compares the CMAC rates for
obstetrics, gynecology, pediatrics and mental health to other
federal health programs in at least two TRICARE regions. The
committee directs the Secretary to submit this report by March
31, 2006, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--TRICARE Program Improvements
Section 701--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. It 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, it 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 702--Additional Information Required by Surveys on TRICARE
Standard
This section would expand the scope of the survey of the
TRICARE Standard health care program that is required by
section 723 of the National Defense Act for the Fiscal Year
2004 (Public Law 108-136). The committee believes that to
improve TRICARE Standard it is necessary to obtain more
detailed information from health care providers. Therefore,
this section would require future surveys to include specific
questions to determine the extent to which health care
providers are aware of the TRICARE program; whether providers'
patient populations use TRICARE; and the extent to which
providers who participate in Medicare also accept new Medicare
patients.
Section 703--Enhancement of TRICARE Coverage for Members Who Commit to
Continued Service in the Selected Reserve
This section would allow members of the Selected Reserve to
extend health care coverage in TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) if
they become eligible for additional periods of coverage through
recall to active duty as prescribed by section 1076d of title
10, United States Code. In addition, the section would permit
qualified reserve component members who are involuntarily
retired to continue receiving health care under TRS following
retirement until their coverage period ends. Furthermore, the
section would allow certain Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)
members a period of one year following release from active duty
to find a position in the Selected Reserves without loosing
eligibility for TRS. Such IRR members would be those who would
otherwise qualify for benefits under TRS but for the fact that
they cannot meet the requirement for continued service in the
Selected Reserves because positions are not available. Health
care coverage will begin for these members after transfer to
the Selected Reserves. Reserve component members who are
involuntarily separated from the Selected Reserves, and who are
enrolled in TRS at the time of their separation, would retain
their TRS coverage provided they remain in the IRR. The
committee also recognizes that the demobilization period for
reserve component members is often short and highly stressful.
Under current law, a reserve component member who desires to
obtain coverage under TRS must decide prior to being
demobilized to extend service in the Selected Reserve. The
committee believes that such a decision ought to be made more
deliberatively. Therefore, this section would extend to 120
days after the member's release from active duty the time a
member has to elect participation in TRS. In addition, the
committee recognizes that a member of the reserves may die
while they are enrolled in TRS requiring the family to find
other health care coverage. This section would extend TRS
coverage for family members for six months beyond the death of
the member. Finally, this section would clarify that the
TRICARE Standard benefit for enrollees in TRS includes access
to care in military medical treatment facilities.
Section 704--Study and Plan Relating to Chiropractic Health Care
Services
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
not fully implemented section 702 of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public
Law 106-398) that required chiropractic care to be provided for
all members of the uniformed services through military
treatment facilities. Currently only 42 medical treatment
facilities in the military health system, all within the
continental United States, offer chiropractic health care
services. The committee understands that approximately 300,000
military members still do not have access to chiropractic care.
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop
a plan for providing chiropractic health care services to all
members of the uniformed members, as required by 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 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, 2006.
Section 705--Surviving-Dependent Eligibility Under TRICARE Dental Plan
for Surviving Spouses who Were on Active Duty at Time of Death of
Military Spouse
This section would amend Section 1076a of title 10, United
States Code, by adding to the definition of ``eligible
dependent,'' surviving spouses who were on active duty at the
time their military spouse died. The committee is aware that
there are many dual military couples in the armed forces.
Currently, a surviving spouse who is on active duty at the time
the other spouse dies and subsequently separates from active
duty, is ineligible for the TRICARE Dental Program because they
were not enrolled in the program at the time of the spouse's
death.
Section 706--Exceptional Eligibility for TRICARE Prime Remote
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive
all restrictions with regard to TRICARE Prime Remote medical
care coverage for active duty family members that reside at a
remote location without regard to their sponsor's current or
past assignment. Such a waiver would occur if the Secretary
determines that there are extenuating circumstances such that
waiving the restrictions is consistent with the intent of the
law.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 711--Authority to Relocate Patient Safety Center; Renaming
MedTeams Program
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
relocate the Patient Safety Center from the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology as currently required by section 754 of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001(Public Law 106-398). Repealing the requirement
for the Patient Safety Center to be located within the Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology provides flexibility for future
placement of the Patient Safety Center at a location that may
be better suited to improve alignment and communication between
TRICARE Management Activity and the Patient Safety Center and
thereby improve patient safety and clinical quality within the
military health system.
This section also would remove the name of a trademarked
product used in an on-going medical program to reflect the
termination of the Department of Defense contract with the
proprietary owner of the product.
Section 712--Modification of Health Care Quality Information and
Technology Enhancement Reporting Requirement
This section would change the terminology used in the
required elements of the Annual Report on the Quality of Health
Care Furnished under the Health Care Programs of the Department
of Defense. This report is required by section 723 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106-65). Changing the terminology better aligns the report
with current standards and initiatives advocated by federal
agencies and civilian health care organizations so that the
military health system can better compare itself to civilian
benchmarks.
Section 713--Correction to Eligibility of Certain Reserve Officers for
Military Health Care Pending Active Duty Following Commissioning
This section would authorize military health benefits for
Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps graduates, without health
insurance or other health benefits, who have been commissioned
and received orders to active duty in advance of the active-
duty report date.
Section 714--Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical Positions
to Civilian Medical Positions Until Submission of Certification
The committee is concerned that the military departments'
plans to convert military medical positions to civilian
positions have the potential to negatively affect access to
care for beneficiaries of the military health system. For
example, one of the underlying assumptions in the military-to-
civilian conversion is that civilian medical practitioners, in
the proper numbers with the right medical skills will be
available to replace the military medical personnel in the
locations where military reductions are taking place. Another
assumption appears to be that civilian medical practitioners
can be hired or contracted for approximately the same cost or
less cost than the cost of maintaining military medical
personnel. Thus, for example, the committee is aware that one
service is budgeting to hire civilian general dentists at a
salary of $113,000 which is what military dentists in that
service are paid. However, the committee questions the
feasibility of such an approach when average salaries for
civilian general dentists are $150,000. Given these concerns,
the committee believes that more analysis is required before
further conversions should take place.
Therefore, this section would require the Comptroller
General to conduct a study on the effect of the conversions of
military medical positions to civilian positions on the defense
health program. In addition, the section would require the
secretaries of the military departments to halt further
conversions of medical positions until they certify that any
further conversions will not increase cost, decrease quality of
care or access to care. The certification by the secretaries of
the military departments is due not earlier than April 1, 2006.
The Comptroller General should submit a report by March 1,
2006.
Section 715--Clarification of Inclusion of Dental Care in Medical
Readiness Tracking and Health Surveillance Program
The committee is concerned that there may be confusion
about the inclusion of dental care in the various tracking and
surveillance activities undertaken by the Department of Defense
to assess the health status of the armed forces. This section
would clarify that in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375),
references to medical readiness, health status and health care
include dental care.
Section 716--Cooperative Outreach to Members and Former Members of the
Naval Service Exposed to Environmental Factors Related to
Sarcoidosis
The section would require the Secretary of the Navy, in
coordination with the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, to
conduct an outreach program to contact all members and former
members of the naval service who in connection with service
aboard Navy ships may have been exposed to environmental
factors related to sarcoidosis. Such factors include exposure
to the aerosolized particles of aluminum, titanium, silica,
barium sulfate, fibrous glass and other materials generated
during the grinding removal of non-skid coating used on the
decks of Navy ships. Sarcoidosis is a disease due to
inflammation that is most frequently a disease of the lungs. In
January 2004, a study by the Naval Health Research Center found
that African-American seaman and aviation boatswains mates who
served between 1965 and 2001 had approximately twice the risk
of sarcoidosis compared to other Navy African-American enlisted
personnel, and that assignment to an aircraft carrier was
associated with a two-fold increased risk for sarcoidosis in
African-Americans and a 1.5-fold increased risk in whites. Two
epidemiological studies done in connection with the report
identified an association between service aboard on an aircraft
carrier and certain occupations with an increased risk of
sarcoidosis. The committee believes that follow-up to this
report is required and the outreach effort required by the
section is intended to:
(1) Develop additional data aimed at determining a
causative link between sarcoidosis and military
service;
(2) Inform members and former members of the naval
service of the findings of the Navy studies concerning
sarcoidosis; and
(3) Assist former members of the naval service who
may be suffering from sarcoidosis to get medical
evaluations to clarify linkages between their disease
and service aboard Navy ships.
Section 717--Early Identification and Treatment of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Disorders
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an internal media communication effort to foster a
change in attitudes of members of the armed forces, regarding
treatment for mental health and substance abuse. The committee
believes that the media communication effort would build on the
family, peer-support, and command programs that the services
have implemented for service members and their families to help
recognize and assist uniform personnel or family members who
exhibit signs of mental health or substance abuse problems.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
OVERVIEW
The committee is deeply concerned with the state of
Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition policy, acquisition
management, the defense industrial base and related matters. In
particular, the committee is concerned that the current Defense
Acquisition Management Framework is not appropriately
developing realistic and achievable requirements within
integrated architectures for major weapons systems based on
current technology, forecasted schedules and available funding.
Conversely, the committee is concerned that the Department is
not sufficiently utilizing streamlined acquisition procedures
to capitalize on a wide variety of commercially available goods
and services that could be innovatively applied to meet
emerging defense requirements in a fiscally prudent manner,
primarily in acquisitions not related to major weapon systems
purchases.
In regard to the major systems acquisitions, DOD compliance
with internal directives, such as compliance with DOD 5000
series, the appropriate use of commercial item contracting
vehicles for major weapon systems purchases, and accurate
identification of requirements that are technologically and
economically attainable are of paramount concern. The committee
believes that in order to maximize available funding, DOD
should focus on developing more stable and achievable
requirements. In particular, the committee recommends that the
Department increase internal scrutiny of acquisition programs
before approving them for the System Development and
Demonstration (SDD) phase without mature technologies,
requirements and firm information technology architectures.
In a 2004 Technology Readiness Assessment of the Army's
Future Combat System (FCS) for calendar year 2003, the
Department noted that of 31 technologies identified as critical
technologies, 24 presented a level of risk that should receive
special attention and planning in the form of risk mitigation
plans. Despite assurances at that time from the Deputy
Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology
(DUSD(S&T)) that ``technologies were in fact sufficiently
mature or that program management had established effective
risk mitigation plans to support entry into SDD,'' the overall
cost of the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program has
increased from an original estimate of $19.0 billion to a
fiscal year (FY) 2005 estimate of $22.0 billion to its current
estimate of $30.3 billion. In addition, the committee notes
that original cost estimates for the Joint Strike Fighter were
approximately $26.0 billion upon passing Milestone B and that
current estimates have risen to approximately $41.0 billion.
The committee believes that many of these cost increases result
from premature entry into the SDD phase without sufficient
levels of technological maturity.
The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense should
certify entry of any Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP)
into the Milestone B or SDD phase of performance. This should
include a mechanism to require an analysis of alternatives when
the Department finds an MDAP has surpassed 15 percent of its
original baseline estimate. These measures should ensure that
the Department procures technologically viable and economically
responsible systems designed to meet the military's needs in
the 21st century while carefully balancing current and desired
capability, available economic resources, and current and
future needs for military presence.
The committee notes that despite a decade of reform, the
current DOD acquisition system is unable to leverage the most
innovative services and products commercially available for
imaginative defense applications. The acquisition system has
not kept pace with an increasingly service and technology
oriented economy. This diminishes DOD's ability to effectively
and efficiently manage acquisition programs and provide for our
national defense. The committee remains committed to providing
for the adoption of appropriate business-like acquisition
practices within the Department, facilitating the acquisition
of commercial services by building on prior reforms in the
acquisition of commercial items, and enabling the Department to
access cutting-edge technology.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Program Cost Increases
The committee is concerned with the dramatically increasing
costs of Department of Defense major weapon systems
acquisitions. While today's weapon systems produce unmatched
capability, the committee is concerned that the per-unit cost
of today's programs may result in an ill-advised tradeoff,
choosing increased capability at the expense of maintaining
sufficient force structure to ensure appropriate military
presence. Increasing research and development costs in multiple
programs have already resulted in a decrease in total orders to
remain within a fiscally viable budget. The committee
recommends that the Department aggressively pursue means of
consolidating requirements, avoiding duplication of systems
across services, and pursuing technological solutions with
multi-service applications.
Procurement of Ball and Roller Bearings
The Committee recognizes that actions taken since December,
2004, by the Department of Defense in the interpretation of
Sections 252.225-7014; 252.225-7016; and other relevant
sections of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFAR),
has had the effect of precluding domestic bearing manufacturing
companies from protections under the Berry Amendment. These
actions are decreasing the domestic industry's ability to
produce bearings critical to our national security and
increasing our reliance upon foreign produced bearings. The
Committee believes that domestic ball and roller bearing
manufacturers should be wholly manufactured in the United
States or Canada. However, if no domestic provider exists for
certain bearing components such as cages and rings, the
imported components have had additional post processing in the
United States, and the component satisfies all domestic content
requirements of the Buy America Act and the Berry Amendment
using the committee's understanding of raw materials, the
committee believes bearings containing such components should
be considered compliant with the Berry Amendment. Every effort
should be taken by the Department to encourage a strong
domestic bearing industry and develop a qualified domestic
source for raw material currently procured by bearing producers
from foreign sources.
Report on Defense Ethics Programs
The committee is aware of a recent report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) entitled ``Defense Ethics Program''
(GAO-05-341), which points out potential gaps in the Department
of Defense's (DOD) ethics program. The committee believes DOD
action is necessary to prevent future violations of conflict-
of-interest laws and post-employment restrictions. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review and report
on the following items related to personnel subject to
conflict-of-interest laws and post-employment restrictions:
(1) Methods used by the Department to identify
affected personnel;
(2) Training required of identified personnel;
(3) Methods for tracking training;
(4) Methods for determining the optimal quality and
content of training;
(5) Methods by which the Defense Contract Management
Agency, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and other
relevant agencies ensure the appropriate hiring of
current and former DOD employees by industry; and
(6) Methods by which the Department plans to track
the number of allegations of conflict-of-interest and
misconduct, and to make Congress aware of progress in
decreasing such incidents.
The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report by
April 1, 2006 to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services.
Requirements Identification
The committee is concerned about the ability of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the military services senior acquisition
officials to respond in a timely manner to emerging and urgent
requirements identified by in-theater operational commanders at
all levels. The committee believes that the Department of
Defense (DOD) should thoroughly review the joint requirements
generation and review processes used to acquire items through
service acquisition channels. In addition, the Department
should de-conflict these bureaucratic processes expeditiously
to create a seamless interservice acquisition methodology
ensuring that operational units' requirements are rapidly met.
These requirements should be based on the immediate needs of
combatant commanders or projected urgent scenario-based combat
needs attributed to long-term DOD-wide conflict preparations,
rather than to a specific service requirement.
Use of Streamlined Acquisition Procedures
The committee recognizes the value in the multiple reforms
of the 1990s including the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
of 1994 (Public Law 103-355), the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-106) and the Services Acquisition Reform Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-136). These reforms were designed to
streamline the acquisition process and to take advantage of
commercial items and commercial services. These reforms,
however, are not without a degree of risk. The committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense is not adequately
complying with internal directives related to the purchase of
commercial items and services. The committee therefore
recommends that the Secretary review internal management
controls and utilization of Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) Part 13 contracts. The Secretary should stringently
review its use of alternative contracting vehicles such as
``other transaction authorities'' and ``commercial-off-the-
shelf'' purchases for large weapons platforms.
Utilization of Rapid Acquisition Authority
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
is not capitalizing on the rapid acquisition authority
authorized in section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375). This authority allows the Secretary ``to waive any
provision of law, policy, directive, or regulation'' that would
``unnecessarily impede the rapid acquisition and deployment of
needed equipment to prevent combat fatalities.'' In its first
use of the authority the Department is projecting the
procurement of approximately 10,000 improvised explosive device
jammers in roughly 60 days. The committee notes that, prior to
use of the rapid acquisition authority, the projected delivery
schedule exceeded 13 months.
The committee also notes that although the Secretary
established a Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC) he has failed
to provide sufficient resources and authority to allow the JRAC
to make a significant impact on rapid acquisition initiatives.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs
Section 801--Requirement for Certification By Secretary of Defense
Before Major Defense Acquisition Program May Proceed to Milestone B
This section would amend chapter 139 of title 10, United
States Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to make a
certification before a major defense acquisition program (MDAP)
enters Milestone B or Key Decision Point B in the case of a
space system. A MDAP may not receive Milestone B approval, or
Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program,
until the Secretary certifies that:
(1) The technology in the program has been
demonstrated in a relevant environment;
(2) The program demonstrates a high likelihood of
accomplishing its intended mission;
(3) The program is affordable when considering the
per unit cost and total acquisition cost in the context
of the total available resources available during the
period covered by the future years defense program
submitted during the fiscal year in which the
certification is made;
(4) The program is affordable when considering the
ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to
accomplish the program's mission using alternative
systems;
(5) The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has
accomplished its duties with respect to the program as
required in section 181(b) of title 10, United States
Code, including an analysis of the operational
requirements for the program; and
(6) The program complies with all relevant policies,
regulations, and directives of the Department of
Defense.
This section would require the Secretary to submit the
certification to the congressional defense committees no fewer
then 30 days before approval of Milestone B or Key Decision
Point B in the case of a space system. The Secretary could
waive the certification requirement for national security
reasons. Such a waiver would require a subsequent report to the
congressional defense committees outlining the rationale for
the waiver within 30 days after authorizing the waiver. The
certification required would be non-delegable.
As stated in a March 2004 report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), Defense Acquisitions: Assessments
of Major Weapons Programs, ``production maturity cannot be
attained if the design is not mature, and design maturity
cannot be attained if the key technologies are not mature.''
Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002, (Public Law 107-107) directed the Secretary
to report annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services on the maturity of
technology at the initiation of major defense acquisition
programs. The Act requires a report during each year from 2003
to 2006 on a requirement in DOD's policy that technology must
have been demonstrated in a relevant environment (or preferably
in an operational environment) to be considered mature enough
to use for product development in systems integration. To date,
the committee has received and reviewed with interest the
reports from fiscal years 2002-2004. The committee strongly
believes that MDAPs should not enter the Systems Development
and Demonstration phase prior to the demonstration of mature
technologies.
The committee believes that the Secretary should personally
make this certification in light of the significance of the
weapon systems. The committee does not believe such a
requirement is too burdensome. The committee notes that in the
past 10 years only 63 MDAPs have gone through Milestone B.
Section 802--Requirement for Analysis of Alternatives to Major Defense
Acquisition Programs
This section would require an analysis of alternatives
(AoA) for major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) when the
procurement unit cost rises more then 15 percent above the
acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost established at
Milestone B. The secretary of the military department concerned
would conduct the AoA at the 15 percent threshold. The AoA
would be required within one year after initiation and
submitted to congressional defense committees within 30 days of
completion.
This section directs that every analysis of alternatives
(AoA) for major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) performed
prior to execution of the MDAP must include a list of
commercially available technologies that have applicability to
the stated program element requirement within the MDAP. All
comprehensive efforts should be made to utilize these
technologies in the MDAP.
The committee believes once an MDAP evidences significant
departure from the baseline estimate, such as the acquisition
unit cost or procurement unit cost exceeding 15 percent, the
service secretary concerned should begin the process of
evaluating other options. The committee recommends that the
Department of Defense (DOD) utilize the Defense Acquisition
Challenge Program as one possible alternative.
The required analysis of alternatives should be built on
the original analysis of alternatives conducted prior to
Milestone B. Such an approach could alleviate the cost and time
requirements for conducting an AoA. The committee does not
intend that the initiation of an AoA necessarily result in all
work stopping for an affected program. The AoA is intended to
foster development of alternatives, not to stifle current
programs or innovation.
With this in mind, the committee recommends that DOD
recognize the potential for an analysis of alternatives during
the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase and that
appropriate precautions be taken to avoid unnecessary costs
associated with a required AoA. The committee believes that no
program the size of an MDAP should proceed without thoroughly
examining available alternatives and that such alternatives
should remain viable throughout the acquisition life cycle
should they be needed to deal with unexpected technological
delays or changing requirements.
It is the intention of the committee that this section
applies to both MDAPs and to the start of a National Security
Space program.
Section 803--Authority for Secretary of Defense to Revise Baseline for
Major Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would identify the baseline established at
Milestone B as the only baseline to be utilized for purposes of
chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code. The committee
believes the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the
military departments have improperly avoided reporting
requirements in chapter 144 by rebaselining programs.
This section would allow rebaselining only when a major
defense acquisition program (MDAP) has a percentage increase in
program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost
exceeding 25 percent of the original baseline estimate. Upon
breach of the 25 percent barrier, the Secretary must return the
MDAP back to Milestone B and perform a rebaselining or comply
with the requirements of section 2433 (e)(2)(B) of title 10,
United States Code.
This section would also require the secretary of a military
department to notify the congressional defense committees
within 30 days of a rebaselining action.
Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management
Section 811--Applicability of Statutory Executive Compensation Cap Made
Prospective
This section would amend section 808(e)(2) 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 government was liable for breach
damages due to the retroactive application of the cap. This
executive compensation would still be subject to a test of
reasonableness.
Section 812--Use of Commercially Available Online Services for Federal
Procurement of Commercial Items
This section would require the Administrator of the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy to revise the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) to maximize the use of commercially available
online procurement services to purchase commercial items,
including those procurement services that allow the heads of
federal agencies to conduct reverse auctions.
Section 813--Contingency Contracting Corps
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a contingency contracting corps through a joint
policy developed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This corps would be directed by a senior commissioned officer
with appropriate acquisition experience and qualifications who,
when deployed, would report directly to the combatant commander
in an area of operations requiring contingency contracting
support. The joint policy would provide that contingency
contracting operations during combat operations would utilize
the rapid acquisition authority authorized in section 811 of
the Ronald W. Reagan NationalDefense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), to the maximum extent
appropriate. In addition, this section would attempt to leverage
contingency contracting assets in both deployed and non-deployed
locations to efficiently carry out the mission of the contingency
contracting corps. Training of the corps would take into account all
relevant laws, regulations and polices related to contingency
contracting and would be required even when the corps is not deployed.
The committee intends that the commander of the contingency
contracting corps be appointed at a grade senior enough to
interact effectively with a combatant commander. The committee
believes that an officer in the rank of Lieutenant General, or
Vice Admiral for the Navy, is appropriate for this
responsibility. The committee intends that the contingency
contracting corps maintains a sufficient level of readiness in
peacetime to be able to rapidly deploy to emerging contingency
operations. The commander of the contingency contracting corps
should consider the development of a standardized contingency
contracting handbook which summarizes all relevant laws,
directives and regulations related to contingency contracting
to assist the day-to-day operations of the contingency
contracting workforce. Finally, the committee urges that
contingency contracting corps utilize an integrated contracting
and financial management system to ensure that contracting
operations are not hindered by technological limitations that
can be easily avoided through the use of readily available
systems.
Section 814--Requirement for Contracting Operations to be Included in
Interagency Planning Related to Stabilization and Reconstruction
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
include contracting operations in all applicable interagency
planning operations. The committee is concerned that the
recently created Department of State Office of Stabilization
and Reconstruction does not include contracting and acquisition
as a key area for review and future planning. Contracting and
acquisition are key components of successful stabilization and
reconstruction operations and should be considered in the
earliest planning stages.
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
identify ``lessons learned'' by the Coalition Provisional
Authority contracting office, the Program Management Office,
and the Project Contracting Office. Matters covered would
include:
(1) Development of an appropriate acquisition
strategy before obligation of funds, including the
scope of the planned acquisition operations, project
management, logistics and financial considerations;
(2) Flow of appropriated funds;
(3) Ability to obtain military and civilian
acquisition workforce personnel;
(4) Ability to obtain country clearance for such
personnel; and
(5) Ability to reprogram funds and to coordinate
interagency activities.
A report produced by the Secretary of Defense in
conjunction with the Secretary of State should be submitted to
the Senate Committees on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
and the House International Relations Committee within 180 days
of enactment of this Act. The committee believes that the
knowledge obtained during the Iraq contracting process should
be captured for use in planning and implementing future
contingency contracting operations.
Section 815--Statement of Policy and Report Relating To Contracting
With Employers of Persons With Disabilities
This section would extend for one year section 853 of the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Education to issue jointly a statement of
policy related to further implementation of the Randolph-
Sheppard Act of 1936 (RS) (20 U.S.C. 107) and the Javits Wagner
O'Day (JWOD) program (41 U.S.C. 46-48c). This section would
require the statement of policy to specifically address
application of RS and JWOD to both operation and management of
all, or any part, of a military mess hall, military troop
dining facility, or any similar dining facility operated for
the purpose of providing meals to members of the armed forces.
This also includes preparation or serving of food or ordering,
storing, or accounting for food or ingredients. The committee
believes that procurement decisions on contracting for military
troop dining services should be made in accordance with the
needs of the Department of Defense and the particular military
activity requiring procurement of such services.
The statement of policy should take into account and
address, to the extent practicable, the positions acceptable to
persons representing programs implemented under RS and JWOD.
The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Education shall
submit the statement of policy to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce by April 1,
2006.
Section 816--Study on Department of Defense Contracting With Small
Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by Service-Disabled Veterans
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has fallen short of the 3 percent contracting goal for service
disabled veteran owned small businesses. This section would
require the Department of Defense to conduct a detailed study
on its progress toward increasing contracting with small
businesses owned by service disabled veterans. The report to
Congress is due 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act.
Section 817--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 with that foreign person), which 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.
Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures
and Limitations
Section 821--Increased Flexibility for Designation of Critical
Acquisition Positions in Defense Acquisition Workforce
This section would amend section 1733 of title 10, United
States Code, to eliminate differences in the authorities
provided for the management of civilian and military critical
acquisition positions. This section would reestablish the
parity sought by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement
Act (DAWIA) (Public Law 101-510) and provide the Secretary of
Defense with the same authorities for the designation of both
civilian and military critical acquisition positions. The
committee believes that not all senior civilian personnel or
senior commissioned officers in an ``acquisition position''
should be designated as critical acquisition positions. The
committee believes that the Secretary should develop specific
guidelines to identify outstanding acquisition personnel to
fill critical acquisition positions.
Section 822--Participation by Department of Defense in Acquisition
Workforce Training Fund
This section would amend section 37 of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 433) to require the
Secretary of Defense to use funds transferred from the
Administrator of the General Services at the Defense
Acquisition University to train students in matters relating to
acquisition.
Section 823--Increase in Cost Accounting Standard Threshold
This section would amend section 26(f)(2)(A) of the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to
increase the cost accounting standard (CAS) threshold to
$550,000, which would correspond with the current Truth in
Negotiations Act (TINA) (Public Law 87-653) threshold. Section
807 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) addressed inflation
adjustments of acquisition related dollar thresholds. This
section would ensure consistency henceforth regarding the CAS
and TINA thresholds.
Section 824--Amendments to Domestic Source Requirements Relating to
Clothing Materials and Components Covered
This section would amend section 2533a of title 10, United
States Code, known as the Berry Amendment, to require the
Secretary of Defense to notify the public when the Secretary
exercises a waiver. In 1998 and 2002, the Department of Defense
Inspector General (DOD-IG) identified multiple deficiencies in
application of the Berry Amendment. In March 20, 2002, the DOD-
IG report entitled ``Acquisition: Buy American Act Issues on
Procurements of Military Clothing'' stated 60 percent of the
reviewed contracts failed to include the appropriate Buy
American Act or the Berry Amendment contract clause. The DOD-IG
report also stated that contracting officers at 13 military
installations procured military clothing and related items
manufactured or produced abroad without determining whether
those items were manufactured in the United States. As a
result, DOD-IG estimated that $593,004 worth of items
manufactured abroad may have been available from domestic
suppliers. This section would prevent a repeat of this
deficiency.
This section would also amend section 2533a to clarify the
covered item described as clothing.
Section 825--Rapid Acquisition Authority to Respond to Defense
Intelligence Community Emergencies
This section would grant the Secretary of Defense the
authority to procure critical intelligence capabilities in
order to address a demonstrable, imminent and urgent threat to
national security that would likely result in combat fatalities
or grave harm to the nationalsecurity of the United States. The
committee intends that the funds utilized under this section include
only those avaialble to the Secretary under title 10, United States
Code.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Section 901--Restoration of Parity in Pay Levels Among Under Secretary
Positions
This section would amend Sections 5314 and 5315 of title 5,
United States Code, to raise the level of basic pay for the
under secretaries of the military departments from Executive
Level IV to Executive Level III. Currently, the under
secretaries of the military departments are paid at Executive
Level IV, the same level as the assistant secretaries of the
military departments. This section would provide that the under
secretaries of the military departments would be paid at
Executive Level III, the same level as the under secretaries of
defense.
Section 902--Eligibility Criteria for Director of Department of Defense
Test Resource Management Center
This section would amend section 196 of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense with greater
latitude in selecting a director of the Department of Defense
Test Resource Management Center. Since the center was
established in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), the Department has
experienced difficulty in recruiting a director and deputy
director who met statutory requirements. This section would
provide the Secretary with maximum flexibility in selecting a
qualified director and would abolish the statutory requirement
for a deputy director, while preserving the statutory
authorities and responsibilities of this important
organization.
Section 903--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. It would allow the
centers to pursue research in addition to communication and
exchange of ideas involving United States and foreign military
officers, civilian governmental personnel, and non-
governmental personnel.
The section would allow foreign governments and United
States 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
officials from developing countries. It 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.
This section would also streamline the provisions under
which the Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security
Studies may accept gifts and donations, providing a uniform and
consistent authority. Funds accepted by the Secretary would be
credited to appropriations available to the Department of
Defense for the regional centers and merged with the
appropriations to which credited. Such funds would then be
available under the same conditions as those appropriations.
Section 904--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 Marine Corps and change the
title of its Secretary to the 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--Space Situational Awareness Strategy
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
develop a formal strategy, systems architecture, and a
capabilities roadmap for space situational awareness and update
the strategy every two years. The committee intends that upon
development of a new strategy covering the prescribed 20-year
period, the start of the time period will shift such that
coverage should begin with the year following submittal of the
report.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
lacks a coherent or comprehensive plan on how to conduct space
situational awareness. The plan for the current system does not
appear to be based on threat analysis and has been cobbled
together from legacy tools, inherited programs, and concept
demonstrators. The committee believes space situational
awareness is the foundation for protection and defense of our
space assets and should receive more emphasis.
Section 912--Military Satellite Communications
This section would direct the National Security Space
Office to conduct an independent assessment of options to
evolve the capabilities of the Advance Extremely High Frequency
and Wideband Gapfiller Systems until the high-risk technologies
proposed for the Transformational Satellite Communications
System (TSAT) can be further developed and matured. The
committee is concerned with the ability of the space
acquisition community to manage risk associated with the leap
in technology proposed by the TSAT program.
Section 913--Operationally Responsive Space
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
create or designate an organization to focus development
payload technology for small satellites. The committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense has neglected the
development of small satellite payload technology. This
organization would develop an annual master plan describing
focus areas for technology development and would distribute
appropriated funds for projects within those focus areas.
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 (formerly the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment program) from the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) to the
Secretary of the Army by January 1, 2006; 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(e) of
title 50, United States Code; and would require 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.
Section 142 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261)
provides that the program manager (PM), ACWA shall manage the
development and testing, including demonstration and pilot-
scale testing, of technologies for the destruction of lethal
chemical munitions that are potential or demonstrated
alternatives to the baseline program, which uses incineration
for destruction of the stockpile of lethal chemical agents and
munitions. This provision further requires that the PM, ACWA
shall act independently of the Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization (PMCD) and shall report to the USD(AT&L).
Numerous Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports and
testimony to Congress state that effective management of the
chemical demilitarization program has been hindered by its
complex management structure. GAO specifically cites the
division of program responsibility between the director of the
Army's Chemical Materials Agency (formerly the PMCD), who
reports to the Secretary of the Army as executive agent for the
program and is responsible for destruction of all elements of
the chemical weapons stockpile except that stored at the Blue
Grass Army Depot and the Pueblo Army Depot; and the PM, ACWA,
who reports directly to the USD(AT&L) and has responsibility
only for destruction of those parts of the stockpile stored at
Blue Grass Army Depot and Pueblo Army Depot. During the
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
subcommittee's hearing on the chemical demilitarization program
in April 2005, the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
(Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) and the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) again
testified to the need to bring together the management of the
program.
In 2003, the Secretary of the Army, with the concurrence of
the USD(AT&L), established the Chemical Material Agency, which
is responsible for management of the chemical weapons
destruction program and operation of the chemical weapons
destruction plant facilities and stockpile storage sites. With
the concurrence of the USD(AT&L), the Secretary of the Army
assigned the PM, ACWA as the director of the Chemical Materiel
Agency. The committee believes that the establishment of a new
management structure, which brings together all elements of the
program under a single activity, will eliminate many of the
management complexities cited by the GAO, contribute to the
elimination of duplicative management overhead and support, and
ensure more efficient management of the total program, while at
the same time addressing the equities and concerns of those
sites using assembled chemical weapons alternatives for
destruction of the stockpile.
The transfer of management of the ACWA program to the
Secretary of the Army in no way abrogates the responsibility of
the USD(AT&L) for oversight of the chemical weapons
demilitarization program, including ACWA, nor the USD(AT&L)'s
role and responsibilities as defense acquisition executive for
this Acquisition Category ID program.
Section 922--Clarification of Cooperative Agreement Authority Under
Chemical Demilitarization Program
This section would clarify that the authority conferred
upon the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army by
section 1521(c)(4) of title 50, United States Code, which was
originally enacted in section 107(c) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law
102-190), applies to cooperative agreements with federally-
recognized Indian tribal governments, as well as state and
local governments.
Subtitle D--Intelligence Related Matters
Section 931--Department of Defense Strategy for Open-Source
Intelligence
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
create and submit to Congress a strategy for the use of open-
source intelligence by January 31, 2006. The strategy would
have 10 components focusing on application of open-source
intelligence in the intelligence process, as well as associated
management, training, and personnel issues.
Section 932--Comprehensive Inventory of Department of Defense
Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Programs and Projects
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, and the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence that provides a comprehensive
inventory of Department of Defense (DOD) intelligence and
intelligence-related programs and projects.
The committee notes that the Department is working with the
Intelligence Community to provide greater visibility into those
intelligence-related programs funded within the Department. The
committee understands that Department initiatives currently
underway to develop a Military Intelligence Program (MIP) will
provide greater visibility for congressional committees with
oversight responsibility for defense intelligence. The
committee believes that it does not have complete visibility
into some defense intelligence programs that do not clearly
fall into the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP) or
under the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA)
categories. Specifically, the committee notes that individual
services may have intelligence or intelligence-related programs
such as science and technology projects or information
operations programs related to defense intelligence that are
embedded in other service budget line items. Greater
transparency into these programs and projects will enhance
congressional oversight and permit identification of
potentially duplicative programs in other services.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, where
appropriate, to provide to the appropriate congressional
committees a comprehensive inventory of Department of Defense
intelligence and intelligence-relatedprograms and projects. It
is not intended that this inventory encompass military operations or
military activities. This inventory shall abide by existing procedures
for the handling of special access programs referenced in section 119
of title 10, United States Code, and applicable Department of Defense
directives.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $895.7 million for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $120.8
million, for operational tempo which is included within the
operating budgets of the military services. The budget is
organized in fiscal year 2006 to address four broad national
priorities: (1) international support; (2) intelligence and
technology; (3) domestic support; and (4) demand reduction.
The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year
2006 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:
FY06 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request............... $895,741
International Support......................................... 429,066
Intelligence Technology and Other............................. 139,591
Domestic Support.............................................. 199,071
Demand Reduction.............................................. 128,013
Recommended Decreases:
PACOM Operations Support.................................. 4,000
Air Force Tanker Support.................................. 3,000
Naval Reserve Support..................................... 4,000
International Support..................................... 10,000
Recommended Increases:
Southwestern Border Fence................................. 7,000
Joint Task Force North.................................... 6,000
Participating Nation Support.............................. 2,000
Support to National Security Agency....................... 6,000
Recommendation
895,741
Items of Special Interest
Air Force tanker support
The budget request contained $4.8 million for tanker
support of Air Force operations. Reductions in support
activities are planned in light of other worldwide commitments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0
million.
Budget requests
The fiscal year 2006 drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities budget request of $895.7 million covers all counter-
narcotics 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 $120.8 million
for operational tempo expenses in their respective
appropriations. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary
of Defense to identify in the DOD's drug interdiction and
counter-drug activities budget justification material for
fiscal year 2007, and thereafter, the associated operational
tempo costs contained in the services budgets for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities.
International support
The budget request contained $429.1 million for
international support and $139.6 million for intelligence and
technology. The budget request for international support,
intelligence and technology in fiscal year 2005 was $522.6
million. In addition, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief,
2005 (Public Law 109-13) appropriated $242.0 million for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities by the Department of
Defense. The committee understands the importance of
international support and notes that the request for
international support will result in significant increased
operational support for the United States Central Command, the
United States Pacific Command and the United States Europe
Command. This support includes detection and monitoring
platforms and assets, command and control support, and provides
equipment and supplies to other nations that are key in the
national drug strategy and defense security cooperation goals.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $419.1 million for
international support, a decrease of $10.0 million. The
recommended funding represents a significant increase over the
fiscal year 2005 authorization. This small decrease will not
result in any diminished activities as the bulk of this account
is funded through The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005
(Public Law 109-13).
Joint Task Force North
The Joint Task Force North (JTF-N) located at Fort Bliss,
Texas, performs counter-narcotics missions to support the
United States Northern Command. The task force has
traditionally supported federal law enforcement agencies in
drug interdiction efforts. On September 28, 2004, it was re-
designated as JTF-N and its mission was expanded to include
homeland defense support. The new homeland security mission
includes supporting the interdiction of suspected transnational
threats within and along the approaches of the continental
United States, and the collection and dissemination of
intelligence regarding international terrorism, drug-
trafficking, and the trafficking of weapons of mass
destruction. The additional mission adds new costs: building
operation and maintenance, headquarters oversight, and command,
control, communication, computer and intelligence systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million for this purpose.
Naval Reserve support
The budget request contained $11.2 million for operations
by a Naval Reserve squadron in the United States Southern
Command's area of responsibility. Reductions in support
activities are planned in light of other worldwide commitments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0
million.
PACOM operations support
The budget request contained $7.5 million for United States
Pacific Command (PACOM) and participating nation support for
PACOM operations. Reductions in support activities are planned
in light of other worldwide commitments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0
million.
Participating nation support
This classified program would provide enhanced intelligence
capability to nations supporting Department of Defense counter-
drug activities.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for
this activity.
Report on Department of Defense role in Afghanistan
The committee strongly supports the U.S. government's
efforts to combat the narcotics problem in Afghanistan, a
problem that could both fuel terrorism and undermine the new
government's stability. However, the committee notes that in
Afghanistan, the Department of Defense (DOD) has responded to
an increasing number of requests for support from the
Department of State and the Drug Enforcement Administration to
help the Afghan Counter-narcotics Police develop the capacity
to address the narcotics problem in their country. For
instance, the Department has provided tactical training, field
equipment and communications to police forces, especially the
National Interdiction Unit and the Border Police. As part of
these efforts, the Department is also constructing numerous
bases of operations for Afghan Counter-narcotics Police, Border
Police, Highway Police, and National Police. The bases of
operation include: (1) smaller bases of operation for brigade
to company level police along the Afghan border with Pakistan;
(2) medium size forward operating bases of operation for
interdiction forces, such as a forward operating base in
Kandahar; and (3) larger projects, such as the permanent base
of operations for the National Interdiction Unit and a
temporary Counter-narcotics Judicial Center, both in Kabul.
The committee is concerned that, despite the development of
an inter-agency implementation plan for U.S counter-narcotics
activities in Afghanistan, the Department is being asked to
fund and manage activities that are well beyond its core
mission. The construction of the $8.4 million Counter-narcotics
Judicial Center, while certainly critical to the efforts to
detain, try, and imprison those charged and ultimately
convicted of drug crimes in Afghanistan, is exemplary of the
activities the committee believes are more appropriately
undertaken by the Department of State. The committee
understands that there may be unique circumstances surrounding
this example, but finds it appropriate for the agencies
involved in the counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan to
reevaluate the division of labor to ensure that each agency is
contributing in those areas in which they are able. The
Department of Defense must continue to play an important role
in the fight against narcotics in Afghanistan, but it must not
take on roles in which other agencies have core capabilities.
To that end, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the
Administrator of the Agency for International Development, and
the Director of the Drug Enforcement Administration, to submit
a report updating the inter-agency counter-narcotics
implementation plan for Afghanistan. This report should include
a consideration of what activities should be reallocated based
on the capabilities of each department and agency involved. It
should also address any measures necessary to clarify the legal
authority required to complete the mission, and the measures
necessary for the U.S. government to successfully complete its
counter-drug efforts in Afghanistan. This report should be
submitted to the congressional defense committees and the
Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Committee on
International Relations by December 31, 2005.
Southwest border fence
As part of the San Diego 14-Mile Border Infrastructure
System, the Southwest Border Fence has served as an invaluable
counter-narcotics resource for United States Border Patrol
agents since the project's inception in 1997. However, the
border fence project is still under construction and the area
remains one of the nation's most heavily utilized drug
smuggling corridors. Since 1998, the California National Guard
and other military personnel have been responsible for fence
construction and general support of the border infrastructure
system. Completion of the border fence would constitute a
cohesive barrier against vehicle and pedestrian narcotics
trafficking and allow counter-drug assets to be redeployed in
other areas.
In addition, the committee is aware that innovative high-
tech fencing, such as fiber-optic-laced, is available and
encourages the California National Guard to review these
options for future fence construction.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million for this purpose.
Support to National Security Agency
This classified program would provide counter-drug
intelligence support to the National Security Agency.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for
this activity.
Financial Matters
Congressional Budget Justification Material
Beginning with the Department of Defense budget submission
for fiscal year 2007, the Department shall provide as part of
the congressional budget justification material with documents
annotated as the P-1, R-1, and 0-1, the future years defense
program, summarized by appropriation, at an appropriate place
at the beginning of the publication.
Other Activities
Civilian Casualties
The estimates of the number of injuries and deaths among
foreign non-combatants attributable to various U.S. military
actions, particularly in Iraq, vary widely among non-
governmental organizations. Currently, the U.S. military has no
consistent means of clarifying these estimates because it does
not track non-combatant deaths and injuries. The existence of
accurate data would improve the ability of the military to
defend itself when confronted with propaganda, may enable it to
implement measures to reduce the number of civilian casualties
in the future, and could significantly improve the U.S.
military's relationship with the local communities in which it
operates, particularly in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
For these reasons, the committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to establish a consistent means of tracking the number
of foreign non-combatant casualties believed to be the result
of U.S. military operations. The Secretary is also urged to
develop a means of systematically analyzing these data to
develop recommendations for decreasing the number of such
casualties in future conflicts.
Counter Terrorism Surveillance Technologies
The committee remains concerned that effective, counter-
terrorism, force protection initiatives are too often not
fielded to the troops in theater due to persistent bureaucratic
delay. The committee recognizes and applauds the Department of
Defense (DOD) for its efforts to follow committee guidance and
implement rapid fielding initiatives. Even so, entrenched,
cumbersome processes persist to a distressing degree. In one
instance, an innovative static aerostat providing persistent
real time intelligence to deployed troops was touted repeatedly
as a success by DOD officials. When the committee asked about
the necessity for more such systems, the response from the
military department concerned was that there was no
``requirement,'' meaning that the validating paperwork had not
yet entered official service acquisition channels. Yet, when
this single deployed system was damaged, an urgent request for
a replacement came from the field, demonstrating the value of
the system. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
take full advantage of the rapid fielding authorities available
to him to provide the Commander of U.S. Central Command with
necessary persistent surveillance assets that are required by
deployed units. Given the fluid nature of ongoing combat
operations, the committee will not require a formal report but
will monitor this situation diligently.
Emergency Response Coordination
The committee is concerned by the seemingly confused
federal, state, and local government response to the reports of
anthrax contamination in two Department of Defense (DOD)
Washington, DC area mailrooms in March 2005. The committee
understands that internal DOD procedures were followed, but is
nonetheless concerned about the overall confusion among local
first responders and DOD employees. The challenging aspect of
effective response to a weapon of mass destruction incident is
the smooth cooperation and coordination among disparate
federal, state, and local jurisdictions. In that regard, this
incident demonstrated more clearly than carefully prepared
exercises that much work needs to be done. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with
Secretary of Homeland Security, to examine this incident and
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2006, on
lessons learned and steps that will be taken to improve
coordination among all participating entities in any future
weapons of mass destruction incident.
Homeland Defense and Homeland Security
The committee is heartened by the Department of Defense's
effort to develop and publish a ``Strategy for Homeland Defense
and Civil Support'' which has been reviewed in final draft. The
committee believes this strategy will be the foundation for
Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security
cooperative efforts and is sorely needed. The committee
supports the proposed strategy's core principle of an active
layered defense supporting priority objectives to achieve
maximum awareness of threats and interdict and defeat threats
at a safe distance. The committee further notes and endorses
the strategy's proposed heavy reliance on the reserve
components and sensor and unmanned aerial vehicle technology to
achieve those priority objectives. In that regard, the
committee believes that the authority provided under section
512 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 (Public Law 108-375) provides the Secretary with the
flexibility to creatively employ the national guard in a number
of missions that support this strategy.
The committee also notes the strategy's acknowledgement of
the reality that the U.S. military must be prepared, upon the
President's order, to conduct military operations on domestic
soil. The committee believes that some of these contingencies
will arise with little warning, and that any necessary military
response must therefore be carefully planned and rehearsed. In
addition, any military action envisioned within the borders of
the United States must be coordinated with the Department of
Homeland Security, local jurisdictions, and first responders.
The committee believes that contingency planning for a
domestic military response is needed and should be a priority
of the Commander, U.S. Northern Command. The committee urges
the Secretary of Defense to publish the strategy as soon as
possible, in order that necessary coordination may be effected
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, state and local
governments and that implementing guidance may be issued to
combatant commanders and the Director of the National Guard
Bureau.
Report on Casualties and Damage Caused by Improvised Explosive Devices
The committee notes that insurgents in Iraq continue to use
improvised explosive devices (IED) against U.S. forces and that
the Department of Defense force protection efforts would
benefit greatly from collecting and analyzing critical, timely
data on casualties sustained by members of the armed forces and
damage to their vehicles. Such analysis would prove essential
in monitoring insurgents' tactical trends, understanding
equipment vulnerabilities, evaluating add-on and up-armor
solutions, and designing improved force protection. It could
then help to reduce the number and severity of future
casualties sustained as the result of IED use on the
battlefield.
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, 2006, a report on
personnel casualties and vehicle damage resulting from hostile
action in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2002. The report
shall include: a detailed analysis of the number and types of
casualties sustained by members of the armed forces which have
been linked to IEDs; an analysis of whether and how types of
personnel casualties sustained in IED attacks have varied
depending on the level of vehicle armor of the vehicle
attacked; the number of attacks on vehicles carrying technology
referred to as IED-defeat technology in which a member was
killed or injured; and the number and percentage of vehicles
equipped with IED-defeat technology that were fully operational
within one week after an IED attack. The Secretary should
include within this report a plan to systematically track any
future personnel casualties and vehicle damage linked to an IED
attack.
Separation and Coordination of Information Operations and Public
Affairs
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should maintain a clear, functional distinction between
information operations that attempt to affect potential
adversaries' information-collection efforts and public affairs
activities that are designed to release timely, reliable, and
accurate information to American and allied audiences. Noting
that information operations and public affairs both involve the
release of information in support of military commanders'
objectives, the committee believes that appropriate
coordination of these two operationally important functions is
essential to realize success in both areas.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to work to
ensure that information operations and public affairs functions
remain separate, to the maximum extent possible, and that
information operations and public affairs entities coordinate
on their efforts, as appropriate.
Update Future Years Defense Program--Modify Strategic Forces Major
Force Program to Reflect New Triad
The committee notes that the Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP) includes a Major Force Program (MFP) for Strategic
Forces. However, this MFP does not include all program elements
that are either totally or partially dedicated to the New Triad
outlined in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and its periodic
assessments. The New Triad consists of non-nuclear and nuclear
strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a
responsive infrastructure. The identification and aggregation
of program elements supporting the New Triad is an essential
step in enabling senior policy makers and Congress to assess
investment strategies for the New Triad.
Commencing with the fiscal year 2007 budget, the Secretary
of Defense is directed to modify the Future Years Defense
Program budget submission to establish a virtual major force
program for the New Triad that identifies and aggregates
relevant program elements which are associated with the
activities and capabilities identified for the New Triad.
Update to and Guidance for the National Security Strategy
The current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is broadly
reviewing the way in which the military provides for the
national defense, including the national defense strategy, the
military's needed joint capabilities, roles and missions of the
Department of Defense (DOD), and how to man and balance the
force. The QDR will likely be influenced by the conduct of
operations in the global war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi
Freedom since the publication of the last QDR in September
2001.
The Department of Defense, however, is only one department
with a significant role to play in defeating global terrorism,
preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and
deterring regional conflict. The role of all national security-
related departments and agencies is brought together in the
National Security Strategy, required to be produced annually
under Title 50 of the United States Code. The committee notes
that the Department of Defense has sought to capture lessons
learned from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and
strongly believes that the next iteration of the National
Security Strategy must also fully explore and adjust to the
lessons learned from experience in Iraq and Afghanistan by
other departments and agencies. The National Security Strategy
should provide a clear vision for how our nation may attain its
security goals in a comprehensive manner, using all instruments
of national power, including both military assets and non-
military means such as communications and diplomacy, economic
cooperation and foreign aid, cultural exchanges, and
investments in educational disciplines such as science,
engineering and foreign language skills. In crafting the
strategy, the administrationshould pay careful attention to
appropriate roles for each department and agency and the legislative
authorities that may be needed to make each most effective. Such an
analysis would benefit U.S. overall national security.
To this end, the committee urges the President to update
the National Security Strategy immediately, so that the
Department can fully implement the National Security Strategy
as it develops the QDR. Further, as part of this effort, the
committee strongly encourages the President to direct an
analysis of department and agency roles and missions and needed
legislative authorities that would make each most effective in
achieving the goals of the National Security Strategy.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--Transfer Authority
This section would provide fiscal year 2006 transfer
authority to the Department of Defense for amounts up to $4,000
million.
Section 1002--Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 2005
This section would authorize amounts enacted in the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-
13) for the Department of Defense.
Section 1003--Increase in Fiscal Year 2005 General Transfer Authority
This section would amend section 1001(a)(2) of the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 (Public Law 108-375) to increase the fiscal year 2005
transfer authority from $3,500 million to $6,185 million.
Section 1004--Reports on Feasibility and Desirability of Capital
Budgeting for Major Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
secretaries of the military departments to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees on the feasibility and
desirability of capital budgeting for major defense acquisition
programs by July 1, 2006.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1011--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Seattle, Washington
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
sell the yard floating drydock, YFD-70 to Todd Pacific
Shipyards Corporation, the current user of the drydock. This
vessel will be sold at fair market value. The Secretary of the
Navy would be authorized to set additional terms and conditions
on the transfer as the Secretary considers appropriate to
protect the interests of the United States.
Section 1012--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Jacksonville, Florida
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
sell the medium auxiliary floating drydock SUSTAIN (AFDM-7), to
Atlantic Marine Property Holding Company, the current user of
the drydock. This vessel will be sold at fair market value and
will continue to be available to the Navy to serve ships
stationed at the U.S. Naval Station, Mayport, Florida. The
SUSTAIN will likely be scrapped if it is not purchased since it
is in need of a major overhaul at a cost estimated at between
$25.0 million and $30.0 million. The Secretary of the Navy is
authorized to set additional terms and conditions on the
transfer as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.
Section 1013--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Port Arthur, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey the inactive medium auxiliary floating drydock, AFDM-2
to the city of Port Arthur, Texas. This conveyance will be at
no cost to the government. The Secretary of the Navy would be
authorized to set additional terms and conditions on the
transfer as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.
Section 1014--Transfer of USS Iowa
This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
transfer the historic USS Iowa to the Port of Stockton,
California, subject to the submission of a satisfactory
donation application. The committee understands that the Port
of Stockton's application will include its plans to donate
1,000 feet of dock space to make the USS Iowa available to
visitors, a 90,000 square foot building to be used as a museum
and ten acres of land for parking, a donation valued at
approximately $65.0 million. The committee further understands
that the port has specific plans to ensure an adequate number
of visitors to the ship each year.
Section 1015--Transfer of Ex-USS Forrest Sherman
This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
transfer the decommissioned destroyer ex-USS Forrest Sherman
(DD-931) to a nonprofit organization of the same name for
historic preservation and public viewing, subject to the
submission of a satisfactory donation application. This
authority will expire five years after enactment of this Act.
Section 1016--Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels
This section would 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 the vessel is constructed in a foreign
shipyard. The President may waive this prohibition if he
determines it is in the interests of national security of the
United States.
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1021--Extension of Department of Defense Authority to Support
Counter-Drug Civilities
This section would extend the expiring authority of the
Department of Defense to provide specified support for the
counter-drug activities of any other department or agency of
the federal government or of any state, local, or foreign law
enforcement agency through fiscal year 2011. The current
authority expires at the end of fiscal year 2006.
Section 1022--Resumption of Reporting Requirement Regarding Department
of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign Counter-Drug Activities
This section would reinstate the requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report detailing expenditures
of funds by the Secretary during fiscal year 2005 in direct and
indirect support of the counter-drug activities of foreign
governments.
Section 1023--Clarification of Authority for Joint Task Forces to
Support Law Enforcement Agencies Conduction Counter-Terrorism
Activities
This section would clarify that a joint task force
supporting law enforcement agencies conducting counter-drug
activities may use funds available for that activity to also
support counter-terrorism activities by those law enforcement
agencies. This section would provide the flexibility for the
Department of Defense to use its resources, capabilities, and
structures to not only assist other agencies in their counter-
drug activities but also in their counter-terrorism activities.
The fiscal authority provided here is a clarification of
authority for joint task forces to support law enforcement
agencies in both counter-drug and counter-terrorism missions
originally provided by Congress in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136).
The committee notes that the Department has not yet issued
policy guidance that would allow combatant commands and
military services to use this authority. The committee urges
the Department to issue such guidance immediately to permit
intended missions to go forward.
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Homeland Security
Section 1031--Responsibilities of Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense Relating to Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological
Emergency Response
This section would amend section 1413 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201) by designating the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Homeland Defense as the Department of Defense (DOD) official
responsible for coordinating DOD assistance to federal, state,
and local government officials dealing with chemical and
biological emergency response. This section would also expand
those responsibilities to include nuclear, radiological and
high yield explosives and other federal agencies besides the
Department of Energy.
Section 1032--Testing of Preparedness for Emergencies Involving
Nuclear, Radiological, Chemical, Biological, and High-Yield Explosives
Weapons
This section would amend section 1415 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201) to clarify the federal official responsible for testing of
preparedness of federal, state, and local agencies to respond
to emergencies involving nuclear, radiological, biological, and
chemical weapons. Since the enactment of section 1415,
theHomeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) created the
Department of Homeland Security and assigned these responsibilities to
the Secretary of Homeland Security. This section would also make other
conforming amendments.
Section 1033--Department of Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives Response Teams
This section would amend section 1414 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201) to designate the Secretary of Homeland Security, rather
than the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as
the federal official who would request Department of Defense
(DOD) assistance in a weapons of mass destruction emergency
response; update the title of the DOD teams to more accurately
reflect current capabilities; and require that the Secretary of
Homeland Security coordinate plans to use these teams with the
Secretary of Defense.
Section 1034--Repeal of Department of Defense Emergency Response
Assistance Program
This section would repeal section 1412 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201). Section 1412 requires the Secretary of Defense to carry
out a program to train other federal agency, state, and local
agency personnel regarding emergency response to threats or
incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) subsequently assigned
those responsibilities to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 1041--Commission on the Long-Term Implementation of the New
Strategic Posture of the United States
This section would establish a Commission on the Long-Term
Implementation of the New Strategic Posture of the United
States to assess and make recommendations about current U.S.
strategy as described in the Nuclear Posture Review and other
planning documents, as well as possible alternative strategies
that could be pursued over the next 20 years. The commission
would have broad purview to consider matters of policy, force
structure, stockpile stewardship, and estimates of threats and
force requirements, and would have the authority to hold
hearings and take testimony.
The Nuclear Posture Review, dated December 31, 2001, marked
a transition from a strategic posture dominated by nuclear
weapons to one dominated by non-nuclear capabilities. In
particular, it sought to replace the triad of offensive land-,
sea-, and air-based strategic nuclear delivery platforms with a
triad of nuclear and non-nuclear delivery platforms, defense,
and a responsive infrastructure tied together with advanced
command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance, and adaptive planning capabilities that would
lessen the overall United States dependence on nuclear weapons.
The committee believes that the commission would play an
important role in identifying the systemic processes and
capabilities needed to implement that construct. In order to
rapidly meet the staffing and administrative needs of the
commission, this section would direct the Secretary of Defense
to enter into a contract with a Federally Funded Research and
Development Center (FFRDC) to carry out support tasks. The
committee expects that such a contract would be entered into
after consultation with the commissioners in order to ensure
they receive the support they require. This section further
requires approval of the FFRDC by the Chairman of the
commission. Additionally, the committee notes that FFRDCs have
the capability to quickly respond to evolving commission needs
through the execution of new contracts and new task orders on
old contracts. The committee expects that the FFRDC selected by
the Secretary of Defense would seek to maximize the
commission's flexibility, particularly in response to the needs
identified by the commission.
Section 1042--Reestablishment of EMP Commission
This section would reestablish and extend the life of the
Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, originally created in the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398). The Commission reported its
findings and recommendations to Congress in the summer of 2004
and subsequently terminated its existence. Concerned that
asymmetric and disruptive threats using EMP weapons are not
receiving the continued attention they require, the committee
recommends a provision that would reconstitute the commission
and extend its mission through 2010, while changing its duties
and focusing it on the evolution of EMP threats and the
implementation of appropriate countermeasures.
Section 1043--Modernization of Authority Relating to Security of
Defense Property and Facilities
This section would allow the delegation of authority to
issue security regulations at certain facilities to civilian
directors of those facilities under the Internal Security Act
of 1950 (Public Law 81-831). Currently, such authority is
limited to uniformed military officers. The section would make
additional technical adjustments to the Internal Security Act
of 1950 in order to reflect other changes in law made since the
Internal Security Act's adoption.
Section 1044--Revision of Department of Defense Counterintelligence
Polygraph Program
This section would clarify and make permanent the standards
by which the Department of Defense (DOD) conducts its
counterintelligence polygraph program. This section would also
expand the DOD counterintelligence polygraph authority to allow
the Department to administer polygraph examinations to
individuals whose duties involve assistance in intelligence or
military missions where the misuse of information could
jeopardize human life or safety; result in the loss of unique
or uniquely productive intelligence sources or methods vital to
U.S. national security; or compromise technologies, operational
plans, and security procedures vital to the strategic advantage
of the United States and its allies.
Section 1045--Repeal of Requirement for Report to Congress Regarding
Global Strike Capability
This section would repeal the requirement in section 1032
of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004
(Public Law 108-136) for the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report on Global Strike for fiscal year 2006.
Section 1046--Technical, Clerical, and Conforming Amendments
This section would make various non-substantive clerical,
conforming, and technical corrections. In the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Congress adopted
general definitions for the terms ``congressional defense
committees'' and ``base closure laws'', both located in section
101 of Title 10, United States Code. With that enactment, much
of the unnecessary repetition was corrected by conforming
amendments to other sections of title 10. This section
addresses the remaining conforming amendments to the United
States Code that were not made in the 2004 Act as well as other
technical corrections.
Section 1047--Deletion of Obsolete Definitions in Titles 10 and 32,
United States Code
This section would update titles 10 and 32 of the United
States Code by deleting the obsolete term ``Territory'' with a
capital ``T'', defined in 1956 to refer to Alaska and Hawaii
before statehood, and to make conforming changes. In the
amended sections the reference to Puerto Rico is updated to
reflect its status as a Commonwealth, thus ``Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico'' is inserted in place of ``Puerto Rico''.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
OVERVIEW
The Secretary of Defense is on the eve of promulgating
final rules and regulations that will transform the Department
of Defense (DOD) civilian workforce. Congress recognized the
need for a more flexible workforce and granted the Secretary
significant authority to develop and implement the National
Security Personnel System (NSPS) in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136).
The committee believes the Secretary can attain the full
benefits of this authority by meeting the spirit and
specificity of the law. Employee representatives must be
included in the process and the proposed rules must be fair and
credible.
Implementation of NSPS is not the only significant matter
to affect the DOD civilian workforce in fiscal year 2006. The
upcoming base closure and realignment process will also impact
the workforce. To aid these employees, the committee is
recommending several provisions that provide authority for the
Secretary of Defense to minimize negative personnel actions
that result from U.S. military installation closures or
realignments.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Extension of Eligibility to Continue Federal Employee
Health Benefits
This section would amend section 8905a(d) of title 5,
United States Code, by extending, until the end of fiscal year
2010, authority for certain individuals to elect continued
health benefits coverage for up to 18 months after an
involuntary or voluntary separation due to a reduction in
force. Criteria for eligibility would remain in section
8905a(d) of title 5, United States Code, and would not be
amended.
Section 1102--Extension of Department of Defense Voluntary Reduction in
Force Authority
This section would amend section 3502(f)(5) of title 5,
United States Code, by striking ``September 30, 2005'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2010''. This would extend, for five
years, the Secretary of Defense or the secretaries of the
military departments' authority to substitute an employee's
voluntary separation for another employee who would otherwise
be separated under a reduction in force. This section would not
amend the rules or regulations associated with this authority.
Section 1103--Extension of Authority to Make Lump Sum Severance
Payments
This section would amend section 5595(i)(4) of title 5,
United States Code, by striking ``October 1, 2006,'' and
inserting ``October 1, 2010''. This would extend, until the end
of fiscal year 2010, the Secretary of Defense or the
secretaries of the military departments authority to pay to an
employee the total amount of the severance pay in one lump sum.
This section would not amend the rules or regulations
associated with this authority.
Section 1104--Authority for Heads of Agencies to Allow Shorter Length
of Required Service by Federal Employees After Completion of Training
This section would amend section 4108 of title 5, United
States Code, to provide the head of an agency authority to
determine the appropriate length of service an employee must
perform in return for training paid for by the U.S. government.
Currently, a civilian employee must agree in writing to
continue service for a period equal to three times the length
of the training period. This section would authorize the head
of the agency to limit the three-to-one requirement. When it is
in the federal agency's best interest, the head of the agency
would use the following factors to determine the length of
service obligation: cost of training, labor-market conditions,
the success of recent efforts to attract or retain individuals
with special qualifications, protection of the agency's
interest, and workforce planning efforts.
Section 1105--Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on Total
Compensation Paid to Federal Civilian Employees
This section would authorize the heads of executive
agencies to waive the annual limitation on total compensation
established in section 5547 of title 5, United States Code, for
federal civilian employees supporting military operations in
the area of responsibility of the Commander of the United
States Central Command for calendar year 2006. The annual
limitation in section 5547 currently restricts the aggregate of
basic and premium pay that a civilian employee may earn in a
calendar year, which results in employees who have reached the
annual limitation having to work additional overtime hours
without pay. This section would increase the total amount of
compensation permitted for a civilian employee to $200,000 for
one calendar year. This section would apply to employees
directly supporting a military operation, including a
contingency operation, or an operation in response to a
declared emergency.
Section 1106--Transportation of Family Members Incident to Repatriation
of Federal Employees Held Captive
This section would add a new section in chapter 57 of title
5, United States Code, to authorize the head of an agency to
transport family members to the repatriation site of an
employee who had been held in captivity.
Section 1107--Permanent Extension of Science, Mathematics, and Research
for Transformation Defense Scholarship Program
This section would make permanent the Science, Mathematics,
and Research for Transformation program originated under
section 1105 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Annual Report on Threat Posed to the United States by Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Ballistic Missiles, and Cruise Missiles
In section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), Congress directed the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
Central Intelligence, to submit an annual report on the threats
posed by, as well as the proliferation of, nuclear, biological,
and chemical (NBC) weapons, ballistic missiles, and cruise
missiles. The committee commends the Defense Intelligence
Agency for drafting this consistently comprehensive report,
which has proven to be a useful and thorough intelligence
assessment of worldwide NBC and missile threats. The committee
urges the Secretary of Defense and those defense officials who
work on such intelligence issues to maintain the high quality
of this report while meeting the annual January 30 deadline for
submitting this report to Congress.
Report on Implementation of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act
The committee is aware that several nations have not signed
``Article 98'' agreements to preclude the extradition of U.S.
servicemembers to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for
prosecution and that the Department of Defense has implemented
the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) as Congress
intended. As a result, International Military and Education
funds and other forms of military assistance are no longer
available to countries that have not concluded Article 98
agreements with the United States.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to require
the ICC Task Force within the Office of 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,
2006, on the results of ASPA implementation, both for the
protection of American servicemembers and for bilateral defense
relationships.
Report on Military and Defense Aspects of the Proliferation Security
Initiative
The committee notes that since its inception in 2003, the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) has successfully
focused high-level international attention on undertaking a
multilateral, proactive approach to preventing proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery, and
related materials among nation states and non-state actors of
proliferation concern. The Department of Defense (DOD) has
played a critical, practical role in defining military and
defense aspects of proliferation prevention and in organizing,
leading, andparticipating in robust discussions, operations,
and exercises with foreign military and civilian forces on operational
aspects of the PSI. The committee believes that such military and
defense activities are important to prevent proliferation. The
committee notes the positive contribution to proliferation prevention
and international security represented by the participation of
approximately 60 nations in PSI operational exercises and urges the
administration to continue to expand international participation.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the congressional defense committees, by February 1, 2006, a
report on the military and defense activities carried out under
the PSI since May 2003, including: a description of the
activities carried out using any DOD assets; the amounts
obligated or expended by the Department for such activities;
the purposes, goals, and objectives for which such amounts were
obligated or expended; and the success of each activity,
including the objectives achieved for each. The report shall
also include a description of DOD's future goals and
objectives, planned activities, estimated funding requirements,
proposed funding plans, and a strategy to support partner
capacity-building, as these items relate to the PSI. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to identify in the
fiscal year 2007 budget request the funding that would be
associated with PSI activities.
Security and Stabilization Assistance
The Department of Defense requested authority to provide up
to $200.0 million in reconstruction, stabilization, and
security assistance to a foreign country for the purposes of
restoring or maintaining peace and security in that country.
According to Department of Defense (DOD) officials, the
Department would exercise that authority by providing up to
$200.0 million in resources to the Department of State's newly-
created Office of Coordinator for Reconstruction and
Stabilization (S/CRS). Most observers and several officials
from the Executive Branch have testified before the committee
that ultimate success in Iraq and Afghanistan depends on
mobilizing all federal resources to rebuild both countries. The
committee notes that DOD resources and personnel have been used
extensively to conduct non-combat operations, such as
organizing local governments, conducting reconstruction
activities, establishing judicial and law enforcement
procedures, restoring and managing the electric grid, and
boosting agricultural output. While the armed services
improvise extraordinarily well, skills for most of these
activities are resident elsewhere in the federal government.
Moreover, such activities are inconsistent with DOD's war-
fighting strengths. Recognizing the desirability of improving
the federal government's capabilities in these areas, the
Department of State created S/CRS to coordinate non-military
efforts in these areas. The committee applauds the decision to
create S/CRS and encourages the Department of Defense to work
with S/CRS, but believes that S/CRS should be funded through
the normal budgetary process for the Department of State.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Section 1201--Extension of Humanitarian and Civic Assistance Provided
to Host Nations in Conjunction with Military Operations
This section would increase funding authorization for
equipment, services, and supplies provided in support of
Department of Defense (DOD) activities to detect and clear
landmines, effective at the beginning of fiscal year 2006. It
would also add ``surgical'' to types of humanitarian and civic
assistance in rural, underserved areas of the world, bringing
the statute in line with language used to describe relevant DOD
projects, and allow DOD officials to provide education,
training, and technical assistance to host nation officials in
connection with the humanitarian and civic assistance provided.
Section 1202--Commanders' Emergency Response Program
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to make
up to $500.0 million in funding authorized for operations and
maintenance in title XV available to United States military
commanders to continue the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program (CERP). The administrator of the Coalition Provisional
Authority initially created CERP from assets seized from the
Hussein regime in order to provide resources to local coalition
forces for short-term, humanitarian restoration and
reconstruction projects designed to assist in the establishment
of civil society in Iraq following the collapse of the Hussein
regime. A similar program has since been initiated in
Afghanistan. The committee notes that military commanders have
praised the program as fundamental to their efforts in
combating the insurgency and recommends funding the program at
a level identical to that of fiscal year 2005. The committee is
concerned, however, that the Department of Defense has not
complied with the requirements of section 1201 of the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
(Public Law 108-375), which required the Secretary of Defense
to identify those laws and regulations that would prohibit,
restrict, limit, or otherwise constrain the exercise of CERP
activities. The committee continues to believe that this report
will be critical in streamlining the process of funding CERP
and ensuring that military commanders can use the resources
provided to them efficiently and effectively.
Section 1203--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 the Republic of China are
appropriate. More importantly, the committee believes that
maintaining a balance of power across the Taiwan straits is
critical to ensuring deterrence and preserving peace, security,
and stability in Asia. China's National People's Congress
recently 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 buildup by the People's
Republic of China, may signal a weakening of deterrence across
the Taiwan straits. The committee believes that the exchange
program, by helping to strengthen Taiwan's defense, would help
preserve and strengthen deterrence, thereby encouraging the
People's Republic of China and the Republic of China to resolve
their differences peacefully.
Section 1204--Modification of Geographic Restriction Under Bilateral
and Regional Cooperation Programs for Payment of Certain Expenses of
Defense Personnel of Developing Countries
Section 1051 of title 10, United States Code, allows the
Secretary of Defense to pay the travel, subsistence, and
similar personal expenses for defense personnel from developing
countries to attend a conference, seminar, or similar meeting
if the Secretary determines that attendance is in the best
interests of U.S. national security. Such travel may occur
within the area of responsibility of the unified combatant
command in which the developing country is located or in
connection with travel to Canada or Mexico.
This section would authorize the Secretary to pay for such
travel between areas of responsibility, effective at the
beginning of fiscal year 2006. This change would allow
sponsoring unified combatant commands to avoid the need for
extraordinary approvals to conduct a given conference or
meeting across areas of responsibilities.
Section 1205--Authority for Department of Defense to Enter into
Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreements with Regional Organizations
of Which the United States is not a Member
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to enter
into acquisition and cross-servicing agreements (ACSA) with
regional international organizations of which the United States
is not a member. Under existing law, sections 2341 through 2344
of title 10, United States Code, the United States may enter
into such agreements only with governments of members of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), NATO itself, and
international organizations of which it is a member.
Acquisition and cross-servicing agreements are an important
tool in supporting U.S. military operations. The committee
recommends expanding the Secretary's authority to enter into
such agreements in order to improve the Secretary's ability to
prosecute the global war on terrorism. However, the committee
does not recommend granting the request to eliminate existing
monetary caps on amounts that could be accrued or obligated by
the Secretary. The committee understands that the Department
has not yet needed to exceed those caps and believes that
monetary ceilings reduce the risks of creating significant
liabilities or surpluses.
Section 1206--Two-Year Extension of Authority for Payment of Certain
Administrative Services and Support for Coalition Liaison Officers
Section 1051a of title 10, United States Code, allows the
Secretary of Defense to provide administrative services and
support for the performance of duties by a coalition liaison
officer of another nation while assigned temporarily to the
headquarters of a United States combatant command, component
command, or subordinate operational command. Section 1051a also
allows the Secretary to pay travel, subsistence, and duty-
related personal expenses of a coalition liaison officer of a
developing country while so assigned. This authority expires on
September 30, 2005.
The committee recommends that this authority be extended
until September 30, 2007.
Subtitle B--Nonproliferation Matters and Countries of Concern
Section 1211--Report on Acquisition by Iran of Nuclear Weapons
This section would express the Sense of Congress that
preventing Iranian acquisition or development of weapons of
mass destruction and their associated delivery systems remains
the paramount policy goal of U.S. policy towards Iran. This
section would further require the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assess the strategic
implications of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. The
committee notes that European Union negotiations with Iran
have, thus far, failed to convince Iran to forego its pursuit
of the nuclear fuel cycle, despite years of effort in which the
European Union has offered several incentives to Iran. The
committee notes Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would
have adverse consequences for security in the region and
recommends a study of those consequences in order to better
prepare the United States.
Section 1212--Procurement Sanction 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
(USML) to the People's Republic of China (PRC). 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.
In response to the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the
United States and the European Union (EU) imposed embargoes on
trading arms with China. Despite China's continuing poor record
on human rights and the adverse implications for peace and
security in Asia, the EU has announced that it intends to lift
the embargo in the near future. In response to those concerns,
Chairman Henry Hyde of the House Committee on International
Relations introduced House Resolution 57, which states in part
that the House of Representatives ``deplores the recent
increase in arms sales by member states of the European Union
to the People's Republic of China and the European Council's
decision to finalize work toward lifting its arms embargo on
China, actions that place European security policy in direct
conflict with United States security interests and with the
security interests of United States friends and allies in the
Asia and Pacific region [and] declares that such a development
in European security policy is inherently inconsistent with the
concept of mutual security interests that lies at the heart of
United States laws for transatlantic defense cooperation at
both the governmental and industrial levels and would
necessitate limitations and constraints in these relationships
that would be unwelcome on both sides of the Atlantic.'' The
House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 57 on
February 22, 2005, by a vote of 411 to 3.
On April 14, 2005, the House Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee International Relations held a joint
hearing to further explore the implications of any EU decision
to lift the arms embargo. During the hearing, Assistant
Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman testified that ``[a]ny
decision by the European Union to lift its embargo on arms to
China * * * is a bad idea and it would have serious
consequences for U.S.-European relations. [A] lift of the EU
embargo raises the prospect of European advanced technology
aiding the military modernization drive of the People's
Republic of China--with direct implications for the safety of
U.S. personnel whose mission it is to carry out the commitments
the United States has made to allies and friends.'' R. Nicholas
Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs,
further noted, ``We believe that lifting the embargo would be
detrimental to peace and security in the Asia/Pacific region,
and that it would be the wrong signal to send given continued,
serious human rights abuses taking place in China.'' 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.
Section 1213--Prohibition on Procurements from Communist Chinese
Military Companies
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
purchasing goods or services from any foreign person connected
to the Chinese military or security forces.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 1221--Purchase of Weapons Overseas for Force Protection
Purposes
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
purchase weapons from any foreign person, foreign government,
international organization, or other entity located in a
country in which United States combat personnel are engaged in
military operations for the purposes of protecting those
personnel. The Secretary of Defense has conducted so-called
weapons ``buy back'' programs in the past in order to protect
United States military personnel using authority to expend
funds for ``emergency and extraordinary expenses'' contained in
section 127 of Title 10, United States Code. The section,
however, has generally been reserved for unique circumstances.
The length of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom, suggests that so-called weapons ``buy backs'' may
occur more frequently and regularly than would be suited to
section 127. Therefore, the committee recommends granting the
Secretary permanent authority to conduct such a program in
order to improve the force protection of U.S. military
personnel.
Section 1222--Requirement for Establishment of Certain Criteria
Applicable to On-Going Global Posture Review
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop criteria for assessing the costs and benefits of
deploying to particular overseas locations and for improving
those facilities. The Department of Defense and the Department
of State are in the process of conducting a Global Posture
Review to update and alter deployment and basing options for
the United States armed forces. In conjunction with the
transition to a more expeditionary Army, the Global Posture
Review seeks to shift from a limited number of permanent
overseas bases to a larger number of more austere facilities
across a wider range of countries. The committee acknowledges
the need to update overseas deployment plans and maintain
operational flexibility, but is concerned that the strategic
and cost criteria for making investment and deployment
decisions remain vague and vary across the regional combatant
commands. Decisions may be based in part on careful
consideration of current and foreseeable threat environments,
fair cost-sharing arrangements with host nations, the judicious
use of low-density/high-demand assets, and the ability of
allies and partner nations to share responsibility for regional
or other defense requirements. For example, the United States
maintains the presence of four F-15 Eagle fighter aircraft, as
well as search and rescue helicopters and tanker aircraft to
support the fighter aircraft, in the Republic of Iceland at a
cost to the United States of more than $250.0 million each
year. A relic of the United States force posture during the
Cold War, this presence offers no military benefit to the
Republic of Iceland or the United States, which could fulfill
bilateral treaty requirements by providing for Icelandic
defense using other aircraft stationed on continental Europe
and in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the committee recommends
a provision that would require the Secretary to establish
criteria and analytical mechanisms for weighing the costs and
benefits of one site over another in order to avoid creating
similar circumstances as a result of the Global Posture Review.
The committee believes that such criteria and analytical tools
will prove instrumental in assessing future proposals for
overseas military construction.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
OVERVIEW
Funding Overview
The budget request for Cooperative Threat Reduction
contained $415.5 million for fiscal year 2006, representing an
increase of $7.6 million from the amount authorized for fiscal
year 2005. This request includes: $30.0 million for nuclear
transportation security; significant increases for strategic
arms elimination in Russia and for administration and support;
and a $49.4 million decrease for chemical weapons destruction
in Russia.
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Border Security
The committee notes that the Departments of Defense,
Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, and State each implements
programs to prevent the cross-border movement of weapons of
mass destruction-related materials and technologies, narcotics,
or other materials that support proliferation or terrorist
efforts. For example, the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration requested almost $100.0 million
in fiscal year 2006 funding to install equipment at border
crossings and ports in Russia and other regions of concern to
prevent and detect nuclear material smuggling. The Department
of Defense is receiving over $40.0 million in fiscal year 2005
to provide non-Russian former Soviet states with equipment,
training, and support to prevent cross-border proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction-related materials. The Department
of State also works with former Soviet states, providing more
than $40.0 million annually in technical assistance, training
materials, and support to enhance export controls and border
security capabilities. In addition to Department of Defense and
Department of State counter-narcotics efforts, the Departments
of Justice's Drug Enforcement Administration has a robust
program to detect illicit cross-border transfers of narcotics,
which represent an important element of terrorist funding.
While such programs play a significant role in efforts to
combat proliferation and terrorism, the committee is concerned
that inadequate coordination may lead to unnecessary
duplication, unforeseen gaps, or contradictory efforts. The
committee is particularly concerned by the conclusions of a
January 2005 report, ``Weapons of Mass Destruction:
NonproliferationPrograms Need Better Integration,'' in which
the Government Accountability Office noted the poor coordination of
threat reduction and nonproliferation programs within the federal
interagency process. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with other
relevant federal departments and agencies, to develop a joint plan for
integrating all United States border security-related activities with
those of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. This
plan shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services within six months of the
enactment of this Act.
Given the absence of a clear, coordinated plan to integrate
United States programs that address border security, including
but not limited to programs affecting domestic borders, the
committee recommends that Congress reconsider providing future
funding for improving the security of foreign borders.
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 $415.5 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 2006 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--Authority to Obligate Weapons of Mass Destruction
Proliferation Prevention Funds for Nuclear Weapons Storage Security
In a February 2005 joint statement, the President of the
United States and the President of Russia declared their intent
to expand and deepen cooperation on nuclear security with the
goal of enhancing the security of nuclear facilities. As a
result, it may be possible to expand the funding authority for
nuclear weapons storage security during fiscal year 2006. The
Department of Defense has indicated additional funds could be
used for nuclear weapons storage security if the Russian
government will cooperate on more projects.
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
obligate fiscal year 2006 funds appropriated for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction weapons of mass destruction
proliferation prevention initiative for nuclear storage
security, provided that the Secretary submits written
notification and justification to Congress 15 days prior.
Section 1304--Extension of Limited Waiver of Restrictions on Use of
Funds for Threat Reduction in States of the Former Soviet Union
This section would provide the President with the authority
for calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007 to waive a former Soviet
state's eligibility requirements, section 5852 of title 22,
United States Code, for funds, providing that the President
certifies to Congress that a waiver is important to the
national security interests of the United States and submits a
more detailed report to Congress on that state's activities and
the President's plan for addressing eligibility shortfalls. The
committee recommends shifting the waiver authority from a
fiscal year to a calendar year in order to minimize the risk of
unintended interruptions in the program that could occur when
fiscal year waiver authority is not renewed before the end of a
fiscal year.
The committee does not recommend providing permanent waiver
authority because it believes that effective oversight of
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs requires the issue to be
reviewed on a more frequent basis.
Section 1305--Report on Elimination of Impediments to Nuclear Threat-
Reduction and Non-Proliferation Programs in the Russian Federation
This section would require the President to submit to the
Congress a report on impediments to the effective execution of
threat reduction programs in the states of the former Soviet
Union. The committee notes that the United States has
successfully assisted the states of the former Soviet Union to
eliminate excess strategic nuclear delivery vehicles in
Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan and that its programs to
eliminate other weapons of mass destruction-related programs
and infrastructure in the states of the former Soviet Union
have been quite successful. The past success of such programs
has depended almost entirely on their cooperative nature and
the pursuit of mutual interests held by the United States and
the partnering country. In some areas, the Russian Federation
has been less cooperative than the other former Soviet
Republics, leading to delays in program implementation that
limit the efficiency with which U.S. threat reduction programs
are conducted. Rather than blaming such inefficiencies on
Russia or the terms under which United States assistance is
provided, the committee believes it is important to isolate the
causes of those inefficiencies and direct threat reduction
programs into areas where there is mutual interest in
completing the task and achieving the non-proliferation goal.
Therefore, the committee recommends a Presidential report that
would help identify those areas where different approaches and
expectations by the Russian Federation and the United States
are causing inefficiencies and make recommendations for
addressing those problems.
TITLE XIV--CONTRACT DISPUTE ENHANCEMENT
OVERVIEW
This title would provide for a consolidation of the myriad
of small agency-specific boards of contract appeals into an
enhanced appeals system centered in two consolidated boards;
one for most of the government's civilian agencies and another
for our defense agencies and the National Aeronautics and Space
Agency (NASA). The consolidation would eliminate multiple board
rules, increase management efficiency, and improve access to
the appeals process for businesses including small businesses.
The title would, for the most part leave in place, to the
extent they are consistent with the new structure, the current
Contract Dispute Act of 1978, (Public Law 95-563, sections 601-
614 of title 41, United States Code), provisions regarding
board procedures and jurisdiction.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--General Provisions
Section 1411--Definitions
The section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide the definitions
of ``Defense Board,'' ``Civilian Board,'' ``Board Judge,''
``Chairman,'' ``Board concerned,'' and ``executive agency''.
Subtitle B--Establishment of Civilian and Defense Boards of Contract
Appeals
Section 1421--Establishment
The section would amend the Contract Disputes Act of 1978
(Disputes Act) (41 U.S.C. 607) to provide for the establishment
of a Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals in the
Department of Defense and a Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
in the General Services Administration. The two Boards shall
review appeals by contractors of decisions by a contracting
officer in accordance with the Disputes Act.
Section 1422--Membership
The section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide for the selection
of judges for the Defense Board of Contract Appeals (Defense
Board) by the Secretary of Defense in accordance with rules
issued by the Defense Board. The selection shall be without
regard to political affiliation and on the basis of
professional qualifications. The section also would provide for
the selection of judges for the Civilian Board of Contract
Appeals (Civilian Board) by the Administrator of Federal
Procurement Policy (Administrator) under rules issued by the
Office for Federal Procurement Policy and from a register
maintained by the Administrator. The selection, as in the case
of the Defense Board, shall be without regard to political
affiliation and on the basis of professional qualifications.
The members of the Boards shall be selected and appointed as
are administrative law judges under section 3105 of title 5,
United States Code, with the additional requirement that they
have at least 5 years experience in public contract law.
This section would provide further that members of the
current Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals would serve as
members of the new Defense Board while members of the current
agency boards of contract appeals other than the Armed Services
Board shall serve on the new Civilian Board. Judges of both
Boards shall be subject to removal in the same manner as
administrative law judges under section 7521 of title 5, United
States Code, and they will be compensated under section 5372a
of title 5, United States Code. In any event, current members
of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals will serve as
members of the Defense Board and current members of the other
agency boards will serve as members of the Civilian Board.
Finally, this section would provide that members of the
Defense and Civilian Boards would be subject to removal in the
same manner as administrative law judges under section 7521 of
title 5, United States Code, while compensation for the chairs
of both Boards and all other members shall be determined under
section 5372a of title 5, United States Code.
Section 1423--Chairmen
The section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide for the
designation of the Chairman of the Defense Board of Contract
Appeals by the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman would serve
for five years and be selected of Contract Appeals from among
sitting judges having at least five years service as a member
of the current Armed Services Board. Similarly, this section
would provide for the selection of the Chairman of the Civilian
Board by the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy from
among the sitting judges of Contract Appeals serving at least
five years on agency boards of contract appeals other than the
Armed Services Board. The Chairman of the Civilian Board of
Contract Appeals would serve for five years.
The Chairman of each respective Board would be responsible
for: (1) appointment and fixing compensation of Board personnel
pursuant to part III of title 5 of the United States Code; (2)
supervision of Board personnel; (3) operation of a Clerk's
Office, including receipt of filings, assignment of cases and
maintenance of records; and (4) prescription of necessary rules
and regulations for the administration and management of the
Board. Finally, this section provides that the Chairmen of the
respective Boards may each appoint up to two other Board judges
as Vice Chairmen to act in the place of the Chairman in the
Chairman's absence.
Section 1424--Rulemaking Authority
This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide that the Chairmen
of the Defense and Civilian Boards in consultation with the
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall jointly
issue and maintain procedural rules and regulations necessary
for the functioning of the Boards as well as statements of
policy of general applicability.
Section 1425--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide that funds are to
be authorized for fiscal year 2006 and succeeding fiscal years
to carry out this title and to provide that funds for the
activities of each Board shall be appropriated separately.
Subtitle C--Functions of Defense and Civilian Boards of Contract
Appeals
Section 1431--Contract Disputes
This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide that the Defense
Board of Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract
Appeals shall have jurisdiction as provided by the Contract
Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607(a) and (b)).
Section 1432--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
Defense 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 1433--Applicability to Certain Contracts
This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) to provide that the
authority conferred on the Defense Board of Contract Appeals
and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals is applicable to
contracts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold
and to contracts for the procurement of commercial items.
Subtitle D--Transfers and Transition, Savings, and Conforming
Provisions
Section 1441--Transfer and Allocation of Appropriations and Personnel
This section would provide for the transfer of the
personnel, unexpended appropriations and assets of the Armed
Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) to the Defense Board
of Contract Appeals and for the transfer of the personnel,
unexpended appropriations, and assets of the agency boards of
contract appeals, other than the ASBCA, the Tennessee Valley
Authority Board, and Postal Service Board to the Civilian Board
of Contract Appeals. Finally, this section would provide that
the personnel transferred could not be separated or reduced in
compensation for one year after the transfer and would set
forth the standards to be followed by the Boards for possible
later reductions in force.
Section 1442--Terminations and Savings Provisions
This section would provide for the termination of the
affected agency boards of contract appeals and for the rules
for affect on pending proceedings before the agency boards.
Section 1443--Contract Disputes Authority of Boards
This section would provide conforming amendments to the
Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (Disputes Act) (41 U.S.C. 601)
needed by the establishment of the Defense Board of Contract
Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Civilian
Board) regarding contract disputes. This section also would
establish the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals to
decide appeals under the Disputes Act for contracts awarded by
the United States Postal Service or the Postal Rate Commission
and provide for the selection and appointment of Board judges
by the Postmaster General in the same manner as judges of the
Civilian Board.
Section 1444--References to Agency Boards of Contract Appeals
This section would provide that any reference to the
current Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) be
treated as referring to the Defense Board of Contract Appeals
and that any reference to an agency board of contract appeals
other than the ASBCA, the Tennessee Valley Authority Board, or
Postal Services Board be treated as referring to the Civilian
Board of Contract Appeals.
Section 1445--Conforming Amendments
This section would provide for the necessary conforming
amendments to title 5 and the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.).
Subtitle E--Effective Date; Regulations and Appointment of Chairmen
Section 1451--Effective Date
This section would provide that title II of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) as added
by this title and the amendments and repeals shall take effect
within one year of enactment of this Act.
Section 1452--Regulations
This section would provide that within one year after the
enactment of this Act, the Chairmen of the current Armed
Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and the current
General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA) in
consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy (Administrator) jointly issue procedural rules,
regulations, and statements of policy for the Defense Board of
Contract Appeals and Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. This
section would further provide that within one year of the
enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the ASBCA shall issue
rules governing the establishment of a register of applicants
and selection of judges for the Defense Board and the
Administrator shall do the same for the Civilian Board.
Section 1453--Appointment of Chairmen of Defense Board and Civilian
Board
This section would provide that notwithstanding section
1451 above, within one year of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall appoint the Chairman of the Defense
Board of Contract Appeals and the Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy shall appoint the Chairman of the Civilian
Board of Contract Appeals.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF INCREASED COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI
FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM
OVERVIEW
The committee recommends authorization of $49,069.2 million
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. These funds are designated for emergency contingency
operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to
H. Con. Res. 95, establishing the congressional budget for the
United States government for fiscal year 2006, revising
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and setting
forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007
through 2010, as passed by the House of Representative on March
17, 2005.
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's recommendation in this title includes a
realignment of $2.1 billion from the budget request for
programs and projects relating to the global war on terror. The
committee's recommendation would ensure that funding relating
to the global war on terror is accurately consolidated in this
title as well as facilitate proper execution of the funds
during fiscal year 2006.
Procurement
The committee's recommendations for procurement in this
title include 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-Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV),
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. Included in the small arms
and procurement recommendation is 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
The budget request contained $129.7 million for Special
Operations Forces (SOF) rotary wing upgrades and sustainment,
but included no funds for the MH-47 infrared engine exhaust
suppressor. The committee understands that these helicopter
heat suppressors are a critical force protection requirement
for the Army SOF MH-47 fleet now operating in a hostile
environment, and believes that the entire fleet should be
protected as soon as these suppressors can be manufactured. The
committee notes that this item is on the unfunded priority list
of the Commander, Special Operations Command. The committee
recommends $137.5 million for SOF rotary wing upgrades and
sustainment, an increase of $7.8 million for the procurement of
additional MH-47 infrared engine exhaust suppressors.
Operations and Maintenance
The military departments and defense agencies need
operations 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 2006, the military departments will be
forced to use third and fourth quarter funds in the initial
months of fiscal year 2006 to pay for OIF and OEF costs. The
committee's recommendation includes costs associated with
Operation Noble Eagle as well as the additional costs incurred
by stateside installations for increased mobilizations and
demobilizations due to OIF and OEF.
Military Personnel
Over the past three 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 in this title a
cumulative active component increase of 30,000 for the Army and
4,000 for the Marine Corps over and above the budget request.
Included in the committee's recommendation are the costs
associated with Operation Noble Eagle as well as continued
support for the recent benefit increases to the death gratuity
and Survivor's Group Life Insurance.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--General Increases
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 the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom.
Section 1502--Army Procurement
This section would authorize an additional $2.6 billion for
Army procurement.
Section 1503--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement
This section would authorize an additional $642.2 million
for Navy and Marine Corps procurement.
Section 1504--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement
This section would authorize an additional $103.9 million
for Defense-Wide Activities procurement.
Section 1505--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Activities
This section would authorize an additional $75.0 million
for Defense-Wide Activities research, development, test and
evaluation.
Section 1506--Operations and Maintenance
This section would authorize an additional $30.2 billion
for operations and maintenance programs.
Section 1507--Defense Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize an additional $1.7 billion for
Defense Working Capital Funds.
Section 1508--Defense Health Program
This section would authorize an additional $846.0 million
to the Defense Health Program for operations and maintenance.
Section 1509--Military Personnel
This section would authorize an additional $9.4 billion for
military personnel.
Section 1510--Iraq Freedom Fund
This section would authorize an additional $1.0 billion for
the Iraq Freedom Fund to remain available for transfer until
April 30, 2006.
Section 1511--Classified Programs
This section would authorize an additional $2.5 billion for
the classified programs.
Section 1512--Treatment as Additional Authorization
This section would authorize an additional $49.0 billion
for emergency contingency operations related to Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Section 1513--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 1514--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 2006.
Subtitle B--Personnel Provisions
Section 1521--Increase in Active Army and Marine Corps Strength Levels
This section would increase the active strengths for the
Army and Marine Corps for fiscal year 2006 by 30,000 and 4,000
respectively above the authorizations contained in section 401.
These increases would provide fiscal year 2006 authorized end
strengths for the Army of 512,400 and for the Marine Corps of
179,000. This section would also establish new minimum active
duty end strengths for the Army and Marine Corps as of
September 30, 2006, that reflect the committee's
recommendations for Army and Marine Corps end strengths
provided by this section. This section would require that the
fiscal year 2006 end strength increases authorized by this
section over those authorized by section 401 be paid from funds
provided in a contingent emergency reserve fund or emergency
supplemental.
Section 1522--Additional Authority for Increases of Army and Marine
Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 2007 Through 2009
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
increase the Army's active end strengths up to 532,400 by the
end of fiscal year 2009, a strength that would be 20,000 above
the fiscal year 2006 authorization provided by section 1521.
The section also would reaffirm the authorization for future
growth in the active end strengths for the Marine Corps that
was provided by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375): a
growth of up to 184,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009, which
is 5,000 above the fiscal year 2006 authorization provided in
section 1521. The section would require the Secretary to
provide the funding in the budget request in fiscal year 2007
and thereafter, if he proposes to increase the Army or the
Marine Corps active duty personnel end strengths as authorized
by this section.
Section 1523--Military Death Gratuity Enhancement
This section would authorize an increased death gratuity of
$100,000 to be paid to designated beneficiaries of military
deaths resulting from wounds, injuries, and illnesses incurred
as a result of combat related circumstances to include armed
conflict, hazardous service, performance of duty under
conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of
war, or incurred in a combat operation or zone as designated by
the Secretary of Defense. The section would continue the death
gratuity increase authorized in section 1013(e)(2) of division
A of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law
109-13).
Section 1524--Permanent Prohibition Against Requiring Certain Injured
Members to Pay for Meals Provided by Military Treatment Facilities
This section would preclude service members undergoing
medical recuperation, therapy, or other forms of continuous
care at a military treatment facility from being charged for
meals provided by that medical facility so long as the injury,
illness or disease was incurred or aggravated while serving on
active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation
Enduring Freedom, or any other combat operation or zone
designated by the Secretary of Defense. The section would
continue the restriction against charging for meals that was
authorized in section 1023 of division A of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on
Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13).
Section 1525--Permanent Authority to Provide Travel and Transportation
Allowances for Dependents to Visit Hospitalized Members Injured in
Combat Operation or Combat Zone
This section would expand the authority for family members
to travel within the Untied States at government expense to
visit hospitalized wounded service members who are not
seriously ill or injured or near death when the injury was
incurred while the member was serving in a combat operation or
zone as designated by the Secretary of Defense. This section
would continue the transportation benefits that were authorized
in section 1026 of division A of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13).
Section 1526--Permanent Increase in Length of Time Dependents of
Certain Deceased Members May Continue to Occupy Military Family Housing
or Receive Basic Allowance for Housing
This section would increase the period that surviving
family members of service members who die on active duty would
be authorized to reside in government quarters or to receive
basic allowance for housing to support a private sector
residence from 180 days to 365 days. This section would
continue increased housing benefits that were authorized in
section 1022 of division A of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13).
Section 1527--Availability of Special Pay for Members During
Rehabilitation From Combat-Related Injuries
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay
$430 per month to a service member with a combat related injury
sustained in a combat operation or zone designated by the
Secretary of Defense. The pay would begin the month immediately
following medical evacuation from the area of the combat
operation or the combat zone after the member incurred a wound,
injury, or illness that resulted from armed conflict, hazardous
service, performance of duty under conditions simulating war,
or through an instrumentality of war. The pay would terminate
at the end of the first month during which one of the following
occurs:
(1) The member is paid a benefit under the traumatic
injury rider of the Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (SGLI) authorized section 1032 of division A
of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief,
2005 (Public Law 109-13).
(2) The member is no longer hospitalized in a
military treatment facility or in a facility under the
auspices of the military heath care system.
Section 1528--Allowance to Cover Monthly Deduction From Basic Pay for
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Coverage for Members Serving in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom
This section would require the secretaries concerned to pay
members serving in the theater of operations for Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) a
monthly allowance equal to the deduction in pay required to pay
the premium for Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
coverage obtained by the member, or an amount equal to the
deduction in pay the member would incur if the member had
elected the maximum amount of coverage under SGLI. The section
would also require the secretaries to provide information about
the allowance to members serving in the OEF and OIF theaters
and members projected to serve there and to afford such members
the opportunity to obtain SGLI insurance coverage or increase
their existing coverage.
Subtitle C--Matters Involving Support Provided by Foreign Nations
Section 1531--Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support
Provided to United States Military Operations
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse foreign military forces for costs they incur in
support of U.S. military operations. Since September 11, 2001,
several countries have undertaken military operations
specifically in support of U.S. military operations in the
global war on terrorism. These include Pakistan, Jordan, and
other states that would otherwise lack the financial means to
support U.S. military operations. In supplemental
appropriations, the Congress has provided the Secretary with
funds to be used to reimburse those countries. By April 2005,
the Secretary is expected to reimburse Pakistan for roughly
$704.0 million in expenses it incurred in fiscal year 2004. In
fiscal year 2005, the Secretary expects to reimburse the
government of Pakistan for roughly $1.2 billion in expenses it
incurs, largely as a result of military operations along the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This section would enable the
Secretary to continue reimbursing countries for their support
during fiscal year 2006.
TITLE XVI--CONTRACTORS ON THE BATTLEFIELD REGULATORY ACT
OVERVIEW
This title would address the myriad of issues related to
contractors on the battlefield. The committee is concerned that
the Department of Defense has not taken the actions necessary
to regulate and account for this growing segment of personnel
present in the Department's various areas of operations. This
title would define both contractors ``accompanying the force''
and ``not- accompanying the force.'' This title would
specifically address combatant commander policy regarding
contractors on the battlefield. Additionally, this title would
address the issue of force protection for contractors on the
battlefield and policies related to contractors on the
battlefield carrying weapons. The committee is concerned that
the Department has not adequately addressed the issues of
communication and open-source intelligence sharing between the
military and contractors on the battlefield.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1601--Short Title
The section would provide that this title may be cited as
the ``Contractors on the Battlefield Regulatory Act.''
Section 1602--Findings
This section would express the findings of Congress that
contract personnel have provided invaluable services in support
of combat, humanitarian, peacekeeping and reconstruction
operations worldwide. Further, contract personnel would be
recognized for their contributions, including in some instances
the loss of their lives, in support of military, humanitarian
and reconstruction operations. This section would also express
that contract personnel are appropriately prohibited from
performing ``inherently governmental functions.'' Finally,
included is an acknowledgment that contractor personnel will be
present on, and in support of, the battlefield of tomorrow
providing crucial goods and services to military, humanitarian,
peacekeeping and reconstruction operations.
Section 1603--Definitions
This section would clarify the definition of ``contractors
accompanying the force'' as it is applied under the Contractors
on the Battlefield Regulatory Act. This category of contractors
have a contract, subcontract or task order at any tier with the
Department of Defense, are paid using funds appropriated to the
Department, directly support military forces overseas, and
operationally interact with these military forces.
This section clarifies the definition of ``contractors not
accompanying the force'' as it is applied under the Contractors
on the Battlefield Regulatory Act. This category of contractors
has a contract, subcontract or task order at any tier with the
Federal Government. These contracts, subcontracts or task
orders are for the performance of work related to private
security, reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping
or other activities in an area of responsibility of a commander
of a combatant command.
This section would define ``combatant command'' as a
military command which has broad, continuing missions and which
is normally composed of forces from a single military
department or two or more military departments.
Section 1604--Requirements for Commanders of Combatant Commands
Relating to Contractors Accompanying and Not Accompanying the Force
This section would establish combatant commander
responsibilities related to contractors accompanying and not
accompanying the force. Specifically, it would require the
combatant commanders to:
(1) More adequately ensure the force protection of
contractors by including their force protection
requirements in operational planning;
(2) Improve communications between contractors and
the military by including a communications plan in the
combatant commander's operational plan; and
(3) Avoid hostile and friendly fire incidents and
further the missions of both the military and
contractors by sharing, when it does not threaten
operational security, open-source intelligence, threat
assessments, and information related to contractor
movement.
The committee believes that if the combatant commander does
not apply the requirements in this section to contractors not
accompanying the force, that he should at a minimum make
recommendations regarding appropriate force protection
measures.
Section 1605--Requirements for Contractors Relating to Possession of
Weapons
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe regulations describing the type of weapons and
circumstances under which employees of contractors accompanying
the force may carry a weapon for self-defense, and information
that these contractors must provide relating to these weapons.
The regulations shall include requirements that:
(1) The contractor request in writing the combatant
commander's approval for employees to carry weapons for
self-defense;
(2) The combatant commander determine whether it is
appropriate for that contractor's employees to carry
weapons for self-defense;
(3) In the case of a contract awarded by the
Department in which a contractor is authorized to carry
a weapon to perform the work of the contract, the
contracting officer for the contract shall notify the
commander of this authorization, and theemployee be
deemed to have the approval of the commander to possess appropriate
weapons;
(4) A contractor employee only be issued a U.S.
military-specification, personal defense firearm that
is loaded with U.S. military-specification ammunition;
and
(5) The employee have appropriate, as defined by the
Secretary, training for using a firearm for self-
defense.
Finally, the committee believes that no contractor, either
accompanying the force or not accompanying the force, should
carry a weapon for the performance of an inherently
governmental function as described in subpart 7.5 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Section 1606--Battlefield Accountability
This section would afford the combatant commander better
visibility and operational control of the battlefield by
requiring him to better account for contractors accompanying
the force and, when appropriate, contractors not accompanying
the force. Specifically, this section would require the
combatant commander to obtain a quarterly list of contractor
personnel present in his area of responsibility. This list
shall include information pertaining to each employee on the
list, such as whether the employee is authorized to carry a
weapon, proof of appropriate training on that weapon, and proof
of citizenship. This section would require combatant commanders
to maintain a central database to manage the information
required under this section. To ensure standard information
collection across each command, the Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe the design of the information collection, which shall
be inspired by, to the extent practicable, existing methods and
models used elsewhere in the Department of Defense. The
committee does not intend for this title to result in
duplication of effort and hopes that the Department will
utilize data previously collected to the maximum extent
practicable in order to ease any administrative burden.
This section would also obligate contractors to provide
information required under this section and sought by the
combatant commander. Lastly, this section would require the
combatant commander to meet regularly with representatives of
contractors present in his area of responsibility in order to
provide both information about his responsibilities to
contractors and recommendations to the contractors regarding
force protection.
The committee believes that application of this section to
contractors not accompanying the force is appropriate in areas
deemed hostile environments by the combatant commander.
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 2006. As recommended by the committee,
Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$12,146,611,000 for construction in support of the active
forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for
fiscal year 2006.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense (DOD) requested $5,551,149,000
for military construction, $2,258,293,000 for base realignment
and closure (BRAC) activities, and $4,242,169,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends
authorization of $5,996,657,000 for military construction,
$1,948,293,000 for BRAC activities, and $4,201,661,000 for
family housing in fiscal year 2006. The committee's
recommendations are consistent with a total budget authority
level of $12,146,611,000 for military construction, BRAC, and
family housing in fiscal year 2006.
The Department's fiscal year 2006 request for military
construction, family housing, and BRAC activities was another
disappointment. Not only was the request for non-BRAC military
construction $400.0 million less than the level appropriated
for fiscal year 2005, but it was $1.0 billion less than the
amount forecast for fiscal year 2006 by the fiscal year 2005
budget.
In addition, the Department's request of $1.9 billion for
implementation of BRAC decisions in fiscal year 2006 was
submitted to the Congress without adequate justification. While
the committee recognizes the importance of BRAC funding to meet
one-time costs of implementation, the lack of analysis used--or
at least analysis provided to the committee--to establish this
level of funding is troubling.
According to Mr. Phil Grone, Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Installations and Environment, in his testimony
before the Subcommittee on Readiness on March 15, 2005, ``The
services concerns over closing costs [in past BRAC rounds]
forced them not to take certain [BRAC] actions.'' This
explanation falls far short of justifying an increase in
funding of nearly 50 percent over first year implementation of
the 1993 BRAC round, even after adjusting funding for the
effects of inflation. In addition, the committee notes that the
appendix of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the U.S. Government
indicates that anticipated expenditures from this account will
leave $376.0 million in unobligated balances at the end of the
fiscal year.
For these reasons, the committee has reduced the level of
funding authorized for BRAC 2005 activities by $310.0 million,
leaving approximately $1.6 billion for BRAC 2005 activities.
The committee believes that this level of funding will be
sufficient to meet the Department's implementation costs in
fiscal year 2006, and expects the Secretary to provide better
justification of BRAC budgets in future years.
The committee has a long history of recognizing the
importance of facilities to military readiness and quality of
life. DOD facilities should be treated as assets worthy of
investment, maintenance, and regular modernization. In the
committee's view, the fiscal year 2006 budget request does not
treat the DOD's facilities as assets. This approach erodes
military readiness and diminishes quality of life for military
personnel. As such, the committee again urges the Department to
renew its commitment to increase its facilities-related
budgets, including military construction, family housing, base
operations, sustainment, restoration, and maintenance programs.
A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in
Division B for fiscal year 2006 follows:
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,479,841,000 for Army
military construction and $1,362,629,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,601,771,000 for military construction and $1,353,629,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2006.
The reduction of $9.0 million from the request for Army
family housing operations and debt (maintenance) reflects the
elimination of funding requested for the renovation of six
general officer quarters located at Fort McNair, Washington,
D.C. Each of these renovation projects is estimated to cost at
least $1.5 million per unit. While the committee recognizes the
historic nature of these units, such extraordinary costs for
general officer housing are unacceptable in the absence of a
comprehensive assessment of general and flag officer quarter
requirements in the National Capital Region. Although section
2802 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) required the
Secretary of Defense to provide this assessment to the
congressional defense committees by March 30, 2005, it has not
yet been received.
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
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) $540,000--research acquisition building, Fort
Detrick, Maryland
(2) $1,206,000--satellite communications facility,
Fort Detrick, Maryland
(3) $211,000--National Ground Intelligence Center
facility expansion, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2006. 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
2006.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2006.
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
2006. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2004 Project
This section would amend the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public
Law 108-136) to reduce the authorization level for construction
at Vilseck, Germany to a level conforming to the requirement
for appropriations.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,029,249,000 for Navy
military construction and $812,602,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,109,177,000 for military construction and $807,602,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2006.
The reduction of $5.0 million from the request for Navy
family housing operations and debt (management) reflects the
committee's concern about significant per unit costs associated
with the management account. Although the Navy's anticipated
inventory of family housing units in the United States for
fiscal year 2006 will average approximately one-half the number
in fiscal year 2005, the budget request reflects a reduction to
the management account of less than six percent. As a result,
per unit costs for management expenses are budgeted to increase
from $2,198 to $4,046. While the committee recognizes that the
reduction of units is largely the result of housing
privatization, and that some amount of management expenses will
continue even after privatization of housing units, the
committee expects each of the services to aggressively pursue
efforts to reduce management costs commensurate with reductions
in housing unit ownership and management.
The reduction of $2.6 million from the request for an
addition to Hockmuth Hall, Marine Corps Base Quantico,
Virginia, reflects adherence to longstanding practices which
dictate that funding be approved in amounts sufficient to
construct complete and useable facilities. The Hockmuth Hall
project, as presented in the budget request, would be funded in
three increments totaling $14.2 million. The first increment of
$2.6 million is insufficient to complete any part of the
project. As such, the committee recommends no funding for the
Hockmuth Hall project in fiscal year 2006. The committee does
not question the validity of this project, and recommends that
the Secretary of the Navy realign the fiscal year 2007 budget
request to fully fund this project in a single fiscal year.
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
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 projects:
(1) $710,000--air traffic control tower, Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake, California
(2) $500,000--wharf upgrades, Naval Station Mayport,
Florida
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2006. 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
2006.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2006.
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
2006. This section also provides 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 Project
This section would amend the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division B of Public
Law 108-136) to increase the authorization level for a pier at
Naval Weapons Station, Earle, New Jersey.
Section 2206--Modifications of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2005 Projects
This section would amend the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (division B of Public
Law 108-375) to provide full authorization of a naval
laboratory consolidation project at Strategic Weapons Facility
Pacific, Bangor, Washington and to increase the level
authorized for a presidential helicopter programs support
facility at Marine Corps Air Field, Quantico, Virginia.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,069,640,000 for Air Force
military construction and $2,018,047,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,171,338,000 for military construction and $1,991,539,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2006.
The reduction of $11.6 million to the Air Force family
housing operations and debt account (management) reflects the
committee's concern about significant per unit costs associated
with the management account. Although the Air Force's
anticipated inventory of family housing units in the United
States for fiscal year 2006 will average approximately one-half
the number in fiscal year 2005, the budget request includes an
increase of $10.8 million to the management account. As a
result, per unit costs for management expenses are budgeted to
increase from $1,069 to $2,693. While the committee recognizes
that the reduction of units is largely the result of housing
privatization, and that some amount of management expenses will
continue even after privatization of housing units, the
committee expects each of the services to aggressively pursue
efforts to reduce management costs commensurate with reductions
in housing unit ownership and management.
The reductions of $11.1 million to the Air Force family
housing construction improvements account and $488,000 to the
Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C., housing project
reflect the elimination of funding requested for the renovation
of 24 general officers quarters and construction of 2 general
officer quarters located at Bolling Air Force Base. The
committee is unwilling to make significant expenses for
construction or renovation of general officer housing in the
National Capital Region in the absence of a comprehensive
assessment of general and flag officer quarter requirements in
the area. As noted previously, although section 2802 of the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) required the Secretary of
Defense to provide this assessment to the congressional defense
committees by March 30, 2005, it has not yet been received.
The reduction of $3.3 million to the Air Force family
housing construction account for planning and design reflects
correction of an incorrect alignment of funding in the budget
request.
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) $900,000--consolidated mission support group
facility, Columbus AFB, Mississippi
(2) $990,000--fitness center additions and
alterations, Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana
(3) $550,000--Wyoming Boulevard project, Kirtland Air
Force Base, New Mexico
(4) $900,000--base operations ramp, Sheppard Air
Force Base, Texas
(5) $800,000--consolidation of missile storage
facilities, Hill Air Force Base, Utah
(6) $706,000--mission support complex, Fairchild Air
Force Base, Washington
(7) $900,000--storm water drainage project, F.E.
Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming
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 2006. 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 2006.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2006.
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 2006. This section also provides an overall limit on the
amount the Air Force may spend on military construction
projects.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,042,730,000 for defense
agency military construction and $48,891,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 2006. In addition, the budget request contained
$377,827,000 for activities related to prior base realignment
and closure (BRAC) activities and $1,880,466,000 for activities
related to the 2005 round of BRAC.
The committee recommends authorization of $976,664,000 for
military construction and $48,891,000 for family housing for
defense agencies for fiscal year 2006. In addition, the
committee recommends authorization of $377,827,000 for prior
BRAC round activities and $1,570,466,000 for 2005 BRAC
activities.
The reduction of $310.0 million to the BRAC 2005 account
reflects the unjustified nature of the BRAC 2005 budget
request, which is significantly greater than the level
appropriated for first year implementation after either of the
past two BRAC rounds even after adjustments for inflation. In
addition, this reduction is intended to limit the likelihood of
unobligated balances remaining in this account after fiscal
year 2006.
The reduction of $5.0 million from the contingency
construction account is justified by the large outstanding
balance in this account and the expenditure of less than $10.0
million of contingency construction funding since fiscal year
2004.
The reduction of $61.5 million for replacement of the
regional security operations center at Kunia, Hawaii is
warranted by the anticipated construction timeline. According
to the National Security Agency, contract award for
construction is scheduled for December 2006--at least two full
months into fiscal year 2007. The committee is not willing to
``bank'' resources by authorizing appropriations more than an
entire fiscal year before obligation of the funds is
anticipated.
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 2006. 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--Energy Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects.
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize specific amounts for each line
item contained in the defense agencies' budgets for fiscal year
2006. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the defense agencies may spend on military construction
projects.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $206,858,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP)
for fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends authorization of
$206,858,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2006.
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 bill
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 $206,858,000 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 $722,831,000 for military
construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year
2006. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year
2006 of $930,849,000 to be distributed as follows:
Army National Guard..................................... $410,624,000
Air National Guard...................................... 225,727,000
Army Reserve............................................ 138,425,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 45,226,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... 110,847,000
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
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) $431,000--readiness center and field maintenance
shop, Iowa City, Iowa
(2) $956,000--joint forces headquarters building,
Lincoln, Nebraska
(3) $918,000--joint armed forces reserve center,
Kingsport, Tennessee
(4) $602,000--readiness center, Tullahoma, Tennessee
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) $960,000--aircraft maintenance hangar and shops,
March Air Reserve Base, California
(2) $790,000--composite training facility, Peoria
Regional Airport, Illinois
(3) $1,700,000--fighter aircraft alert complex,
Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan
(4) $850,000--northeast air defense sector support
facility, Rome, New York
(5) $920,000--pararescue facility, Gabreski Air
National Guard Base, New York
(6) $1,172,000--composite aircraft maintenance
complex, Will Rogers Airport, Oklahoma
(7) $570,000--operations/communications training
complex, Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, Pennsylvania
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) $990,000--reserve center, Worcester,
Massachusetts
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 2006. 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, 2008, or the date of enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2009, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
before October 1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2009, whichever is later.
Section 2702--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2003
Projects
This section would extend certain fiscal year 2003 military
construction authorizations until October 1, 2006, or the date
of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2007, whichever is later. The
extended authorizations apply to the following projects:
$15,906,000 to replace family housing at Eglin Air Force Base,
Florida; $597,000 to replace the family housing office at Eglin
Air Force Base, Florida; $16,505,000 to replace family housing
at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi; $14,311,000 to replace
family housing at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; $447,000 for
a housing maintenance facility at Randolph Air Force Base,
Texas; $5,000,000 to consolidate areas at Aviano Air Base,
Italy; and $5,000,000 for a special operations training range
at Stennis Space Center, Mississippi.
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2002
Projects
This section would extend fiscal year 2002 military
construction authorizations until October 1, 2006, or the date
of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2007, whichever is later. The
extended authorizations apply to the following projects:
$1,500,000 for land acquisition at Pohakuloa Training Area,
Hawaii; and $7,300,000 for family housing at Barksdale Air
Force Base, Louisiana.
Section 2704--Effective Date
This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October
1, 2005, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Alternative Methods of Providing Access to Fitness Facilities for
Service Members and Dependents
The committee recognizes the importance of military fitness
centers to both quality of life and military readiness.
Although most military installations have fitness facilities
available to service members and their families, 60 percent of
these facilities are classified as inadequate. In light of the
significant cost of replacement and renovation of the services'
fitness centers, estimated at $3 billion over the course of a
20-year effort, the committee believes that the Department of
Defense should explore alternative approaches to providing
access to fitness centers to service members and their
families.
The committee is aware that the Department recently
conducted a study on fitness center privatization, including
off-base fitness club membership buydowns, privatization of on-
base fitness centers, and public-private construction of
fitness center facilities. The Department is in the process of
implementing the results of this study through tests of off-
base membership buydowns at Fort Lewis, Washington and Fort
Carson, Colorado, contract renovation and operation of a
fitness center at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and public-private
construction of a fitness center at Selfridge Air National
Guard Base, Michigan.
While the committee applauds these efforts and looks
forward to the results of these tests, it is disappointed by
the lack of participation in these tests by the Navy and the
Air Force. Considering that each service is facing significant
fitness center recapitalization costs in the near future, the
committee urges both the Navy and the Air Force to reconsider
the use of alternative approaches to addressing fitness center
requirements.
Finally, the committee expects the Department to report
regularly to Congress on the progress of existing test projects
as well as implementation of any additional projects.
Employment and Training Programs to Assist Communities Affected by Base
Realignment and Closure Actions
The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense has
authority under section 2391(b) of title 10, United States
Code, and under Executive Order 13378 to supplement funds
available under federal programs administered by other agencies
in order to assist state and local governments in planning
community adjustments and economic diversification required as
a result of the base closure and realignment process. The
committee is further aware that the Secretary has previously
used this authority to transfer funds to the Department of
Labor (DOL) to fund employment and training assistance offered
by the Department of Labor to assist civilians affected by base
closures and realignments.
The committee believes that the funding provided by the
Department of Defense to the Department of Labor following
previous base realignment and closure rounds significantly
enhanced the ability of Department of Labor to provide
employment and training services to civilians in communities
affected by these closures and realignments. This supplemental
funding especially benefited those civilians who were otherwise
ineligible for transition services or other direct economic
adjustment assistance from programs administered by the
Department of Defense.
Recognizing the value of the transition services offered by
the Department of Labor and the need for the availability of
such services to the civilian population affected by the 2005
base closure and realignment process, the committee encourages
the Secretary of Defense to transfer such sums as he deems
appropriate from the Base Closure Account 2005 to the Secretary
of Labor for use in civilian worker transition assistance,
employment, and training programs or other related purposes.
Facilities-Related Reporting Requirements
Many of the facilities-related authorities contained within
chapters 159, 169, and 1803 of title 10, United States Code,
contain ``notice-and-wait'' requirements. Over the past several
budget cycles, the Department of Defense (DOD) has repeatedly
requested relief from these requirements. While the committee
has supported reductions of time periods associated with
notice-and-wait requirements, it continues to believe that they
serve as useful tools for oversight of DOD's military
construction and other facilities programs. As such, the
committee is not inclined to accommodate requests to further
reduce or eliminate notice-and-wait requirements.
In addition, the committee has employed a unique approach
to reducing notice-and-wait time periods by permitting
shortened wait periods when notices are provided
electronically. The committee reminds the Department that
section 480 of title 10, United States Code, directs that all
reports required by law to be submitted to Congress (except
classified documents) be submitted in an electronic medium. In
light of this statutory requirement, and the committee's
interest in facilitating the rapid flow of information from the
Department, the committee is concerned by reports that the
Department has been unwilling or unable to recognize reduced
notice-and-wait periods associated with electronic submissions.
The committee urges the Department to implement a process by
which electronic submissions of reports are permitted shortened
notice-and-wait periods.
As part of this process, the committee believes that the
Department should explore options that include an internet-
based reporting system. Such a system would provide a useful
tool for tracking submission of reports to Congress, receipt of
these reports, and an archive of past reports. While
implementation of such a system for all DOD reports may be too
ambitious a goal in the short term, the committee believes that
such a system should be quickly developed and deployed to
support the reporting requirements associated with chapters
159, 169, and 1803 of title 10, United States Code.
Facility Projects During the Base Realignment and Closure Process
On March 25, 2005, the Deputy Civil Engineer of the Air
Force issued a memorandum informing its installation engineers
that all contract awards for Air Force military construction,
family housing, sustainment, restoration, and modernization
projects would be placed on hold through May 16, 2005. The memo
described this action as ``a pause to ensure wise spending and
quality management practices govern our daily course of
action.''
The committee is concerned about the effects of this pause
on efforts to recapitalize the service's infrastructure and its
ability to address problems directly affecting the life,
health, and safety of service members and their families.
However, in this resource-constrained environment, the Air
Force's decision to delay contract awards was the correct one,
and the committee is disappointed that the Secretary of Defense
did not issue similar guidance to all of the services and
defense agencies.
Although the Department of Defense will release base
realignment and closure (BRAC) recommendations by May 16, 2005,
the binding recommendations of the BRAC commission will not
become effective until the end of calendar year 2005. As a
result, contract awards for the construction, sustainment, and
improvement of military facilities prior to the conclusion of
the BRAC 2005 process may improve or construct facilities that
are never utilized by military personnel. As such, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to issue risk-based
direction to the services and defense agencies to guide
decisions to award facility construction, sustainment, and
improvement contracts during the remainder of calendar year
2005.
Inclusion of Analysis of Excess Capacity at Military Medical Facilities
in GAO Report on DOD's Process and Recommendations for the 2005 BRAC
Round
The committee is aware that the Comptroller General is
required by section 2903(d)(5)(B) of the Base Realignment and
Closure Act of 1990 to submit an analysis of the Department of
Defense's 2005 process and recommendations for closure and
realignment to the congressional defense committees by July 1,
2005. The committee directs the comptroller general to
specifically address the following points in his analysis of
the proposals:
(1) The methodology for determining excess capacity
at military medical facilities, and whether the
methodology complies with the requirements of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990;
(2) The costs that would be shifted to TRICARE and
other agencies of federal, state, and local
governments, with costs itemized by agency for each
proposed military medical facility closure or
realignment;
(3) Whether the personnel effects of the recommended
closures and realignments for military medical
activities comply with the requirements of 10 USC Sec.
129c;
(4) The effects of the reduction in services and
procedures provided at military medical facilities on
recruitment, retention, training, and morale of
military medical personnel;
(5) The out-of-pocket costs to military personnel,
retirees, and dependents, and the effects on the
availability of care, quality of care, and continuity
of care provided to personnel, retirees, and military
families; and
(6) The effects of the closure or realignment of
military medical facilities on cooperative agreements,
sharing agreements, joint services, joint research, and
other arrangements with facilities of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and other agencies.
In all estimates of savings and costs, the committee
directs that the estimate of net costs or savings from
increases or reductions in personnel be listed separately from
the estimate of net costs or savings derived from facility
closure, realignment, or relocation.
Medical Treatment Facility Construction
In the committee report (House Report 108-106) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Public Law 108-136), the committee encouraged the Department
of Defense (DOD) to explore the potential for a joint DOD-
Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facility at the University of
Colorado Hospital (UCH) at the Fitzsimons Campus in Aurora,
Colorado.
The committee continued its support for joint DOD-VA
medical treatment facilities through passage of section 2811 of
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), which requires the
Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
consult on the feasibility of establishing a joint medical
treatment facility before proposing construction of a new
facility.
The committee remains committed to encouraging DOD to
explore facility-sharing arrangements as part of efforts to
reduce overhead costs associated with medical treatment
facilities. For this reason, the committee appreciates DOD's
efforts to comply with direction to explore the potential for a
joint facility at the UCH Fitzsimons Campus. The committee
understands that construction of a joint DOD-VA facility at
this location is not likely to occur in a timely fashion. As
such, the committee supports the efforts of the Air Force to
enter into a legal relationship with UCH under which the
hospital would provide clinical and administrative space to the
Air Force. Such an arrangement holds the potential to reduce
costs to the Air Force while expanding the availability of care
from 7,500 to 12,000 beneficiaries and providing ``one-stop
shopping'' for military personnel and family members attached
to Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado.
Use of Authorities to Privatize Unaccompanied Housing
The committee understands that the Secretary of the Army
has conducted a recent study of the viability of using
authorities provided by subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10,
United States Code, to privatize unaccompanied housing
facilities. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
submit to the House Committee on Armed Services the results of
the recent Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Task Force Study by
July 1, 2005. The Secretary should also submit his
recommendations and plans to utilize privatization authorities
to build, construct, or maintain Army unaccompanied housing for
single noncommissioned officers.
Use of Electronic Marking Systems to Document Underground
Infrastructure Systems
The Department of Defense is continually upgrading or
repairing electric, gas, water, information technology, and
other underground infrastructure systems at its military
installations. The use of advanced electronic marking systems
to document underground infrastructure represents an
opportunity for the Department to reduce inadvertent damage to
critical assets and improve efficiency during future repair and
modernization efforts. As such, the committee encourages the
military services to consider the use of underground electronic
marking systems that provide both location and identification
of underground infrastructure systems during future
infrastructure upgrades.
Use of Temporary Facilities to Support Long-Term Military Requirements
In support of the Department of the Army's plans to
increase the number of active modular Brigade Combat Team Units
of Action from 33 to 43 by fiscal year 2006, the Department of
Defense (DOD) will spend more than $1.0 billion to purchase and
install ``temporary'' facilities to provide living and working
space for these units. These temporary facilities, consisting
of modular buildings and trailers, have a design life of five
to seven years, and many do not meet minimal DOD standards.
Despite the already substandard conditions and the finite
lifespan of these facilities, the Army has not included funds
to sustain or replace these trailers with permanent facilities
in the Future Years Defense Plan.
The committee is troubled by the Army's reliance on such
facilities to support its modularity initiative, as well as its
failure to budget for permanent replacements. In addition, the
committee is concerned that the Army and other services may
utilize a similar strategy of utilizing temporary facilities to
meet facility needs resulting from the 2005 base realignment
and closure (BRAC) round and the return of military personnel
to the United States from overseas locations.
While rapid implementation of BRAC decisions is desirable,
as is the swift return of military personnel to the United
States, the committee urges the Department to consider the
fiscal, readiness, and quality of life costs associated with
accelerating such changes if the use of substandard temporary
facilities will be required to support them. As such, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by April 1, 2006 on:
(1) An inventory of the temporary facilities
installed to meet modularity requirements;
(2) An estimate of the scope and costs to maintain
the temporary facilities through the end of their
planned use;
(3) A timeline for replacement of temporary
facilities with permanent facilities;
(4) A description and cost estimate for construction
of permanent facilities required to replace temporary
facilities;
(5) An assessment of the scope and cost to add to or
alter existing facilities required to support military
personnel and their families; and
(6) An estimate of the date that the Army will meet
the DOD's goal to eliminate inadequate unaccompanied
housing.
In addition, the report should include a description of
Department of Defense guidance relating to the procurement and
use of temporary facilities to support personnel relocations
resulting from BRAC 2005 and global posture changes.
Utilities Privatization
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85) authorized the Department of Defense (DOD)
to privatize installation utility systems, including electric,
water, wastewater, and natural gas systems. Although this
authority has been in place for nearly eight years, and the
Department has spent approximately $250.0 million on
implementation, the services privatized less than 10 percent of
their utility systems through December 31, 2004.
The sizeable cost associated with incremental progress in
utilities privatization raises concerns about the viability and
value of the utilities privatization program. In addition, a
recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO-05-
433) calls into question the services' methodology for
estimating costs and savings resulting from utilities
privatization proposals and highlights DOD's failure to
effectively manage and oversee the program.
While the Department seems to view utilities privatization
as the only affordable approach to improving aging utilities
infrastructure, the committee reminds the Department that
utility system privatization projects, by law, must have long-
term economic benefits that exceed the long-term economic costs
and must reduce the long-term costs of utility services. In
spite of this clear legal requirement, the GAO report indicates
that the services have employed methodologies for conducting
economic analyses of proposed utilities privatization efforts
that result in an unrealistic sense of savings. Furthermore,
GAO found that the Department does not require independent
review of these analyses, a contributing factor in permitting
several pastanalyses to include inaccuracies that favored
utilities privatization over continued government ownership.
In addition, DOD's failure to consistently apply
requirements to receive fair market value for utility system
conveyances may have resulted in unnecessary costs to the
government. For instance, a recent privatization effort at
Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia resulted in the contractor
paying $741,000 for the conveyance of electrical infrastructure
but recovering this cost by charging the Air Force $1,322,000
over time. Likewise, the Department has not issued oversight
guidance to the services, raising questions about whether
contractor performance is meeting requirements or expectations.
Finally, DOD's approach to utilities privatization includes
the permanent conveyance of utility systems to private
contractors. This approach differs from private sector
practices of outsourcing operations and maintenance but
retaining system ownership. As a result, the Department is
ceding a significant advantage when negotiating service
contract changes or renewals, as the services will either be
forced to deal with the current contractor or incur large costs
associated with constructing new utilities systems to replace
those conveyed.
The committee continues to believe that utilities
privatization may, in certain cases, be a cost-effective
approach to the revitalization of military utilities
infrastructure. However, whether the benefits of utilities
privatization outweigh increased costs to taxpayers remains
unclear. In addition, the committee is not convinced that the
practice of conveying ownership of utilities systems and
inconsistently collecting fair market value for system
conveyances is in the nation's best interest.
As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
proceed with the solicitation or award of a utilities
privatization contract during the remainder of fiscal year 2005
no sooner than 21 days after notification of the House and
Senate Committees on Armed Services of the intent to do so.
This notification should include complete economic
justification for each project as well as details of the
contract proposed to be awarded. In addition, the committee
recommends a provision (section 2812) that would suspend the
utilities privatization program for a period of time, allowing
sufficient time for congress and DOD to review the program. The
committee has adjusted funding levels in title III to reflect
suspension of this program during fiscal year 2006.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Modification of Congressional Notification Requirements
for Certain Military Construction Activities
This section would reduce by seven days the notice and wait
periods related to use of the contingency construction
authority (10 U.S.C. 2804) and the authority to acquire
existing facilities in lieu of construction (10 U.S.C. 2813).
Section 2802--Improve Availability and Timeliness of Department of
Defense Information Regarding Military Construction and Family Housing
Accounts and Activities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish and make available to Congress an internet-based
system containing regularly updated information on the status
of all defense agency and service military construction and
family housing projects as well as operations, maintenance, and
other support accounts authorized by the annual Military
Construction Authorization Act. The committee anticipates that
this information will provide greater transparency of the
progress, costs, and actual expenditures of military
construction and family housing budgets.
Section 2803--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 surplus property for construction
projects, land, or housing.
Section 2804--Effect of Failure to Submit Required Report on Need for
General and Flag Officers Quarters in National Capital Region
This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2006
funds for the operation, maintenance, or repair of housing
units for general and flag officers in the National Capital
Region until receipt of a report on the need for general and
flag officer housing in the National Capital Region.
Section 2802(c) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (division B of Public Law 108-375)
required the Secretary of Defense to submit by March 30, 2005,
a report containing an analysis of anticipated needs in the
National Capital Region for family housing units for general
and flag officers. Despite long-standing committee interest in
oversight of general and flag officer housing, and clear
legislative direction to submit a report by March 30, 2005, the
Secretary notified the committee without explanation on April
8, 2005, that this report would be received by May 31, 2005.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary to suspend
the expenditure of fiscal year 2005 family housing
construction, maintenance, and repair funding for general and
flag officer housing units in the National Capital Region until
submission of the required report. The Secretary may proceed
with projects that are necessary to correct any deficiency that
is life-, health-, or safety-threatening.
In addition, the committee has not provided funding
requested for fiscal year 2006 for the construction and
renovation of general and flag officer housing in the National
Capital Region. The committee is unwilling to expend scarce
family housing resources in the absence of justification for
the number of general and flag officer housing units on
military installations in the region.
Section 2805--One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use
Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects Outside the
United States
This section would extend for one year 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. The section would also
amend the section 2808 authority to require that the Department
of Defense notify Congress seven days in advance of obligation
of funds for each project and to provide for suspension of the
authority if quarterly reports on use of the authority are not
provided in a timely manner.
Section 2806--Clarification of Moratorium on Certain Improvements at
Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico
This section would amend section 1507 of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398) to clarify the moratorium on construction
activities at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico to permit the
conversion, rehabilitation, improvement, and repair of
facilities at the installation.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Consolidation of Department of Defense Land Acquisition
Authorities and Limitations on Use of Such Authorities
This section would consolidate provisions of chapter 159 of
title 10, United States Code, which govern the acquisition of
land by the Department of Defense and make several technical
corrections. This section makes no substantive change to the
law.
Section 2812--Report on Use of Utility System Conveyance Authority and
Temporary Suspension of Authority Pending Report
This section would suspend the use of current authorities
related to the privatization of utility systems until enactment
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,
or one year after receipt of a report on the program, whichever
is later. This section would require the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to Congress by March 15, 2006, on: the
Department of Defense's (DOD) methodology for conducting
economic analyses of potential utility system conveyances;
steps taken to ensure the reliability of completed economic
analyses, including after-privatization reviews of actual costs
and savings; a review of costs and savings resulting from each
of the systems already privatized; the effects of permanent
conveyance of ownership in privatization contracts; the effects
of requiring fair market value for conveyed utility systems;
DOD oversight of implementation of the adequacy of utilities
services after privatization; and the effects on base operating
budgets of utilities privatization.
As noted previously, the committee is concerned by DOD's
application of utilities privatization authorities. The
committee expects that this section will allow Congress and the
Department to reevaluate the use and effects of these
authorities after an extended period of use. While legal
authorities for the Department to continue to privatize its
utility systems will remain in effect until enactment of this
section, elsewhere in this report the committee has directed
the Secretary to notify the House Committee on Armed Services
and the Senate Committee on Armed Services 21 days prior to
award of any utilities privatization contract during the
remainder of fiscal year 2005.
Section 2813--Authorized Military Uses of Papago Park Military
Reservation, Phoenix, Arizona
This section would amend the Act of April 7, 1930, which
authorized the use of land at Papago Park Military Reservation,
Arizona for a rifle range only, to reflect current usage of the
land.
Subtitle C--Base Closure and Realignment
Section 2821--Additional Reporting Requirements Regarding Base Closure
Process and Use of Department of Defense Base Closure Accounts
This section would amend reporting requirements contained
in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A
of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510) to require additional
information relating to base realignment and closure properties
and proposed budgets as part of the annual budget justification
documents.
Section 2822--Termination of Project Authorizations for Military
Installations Approved for Closure in 2005 Round of Base Realignments
and Closures
This section would cancel authority for any military
construction project, land acquisition, or family housing
project authorized in this or any prior military construction
authorization act at a facility approved for closure in the
2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. This section
would not apply to projects for which appropriated funds have
already been obligated. This section is intended to ensure that
the Department of Defense does not waste funds by initiating
military construction, family housing, or land acquisition
projects at installations closed during the 2005 BRAC process.
Section 2823--Expanded Availability of Adjustment and Diversification
Assistance for Communities Adversely Affected by Mission Realignments
in Base Closure Process
This section would amend section 2391 of title 10, United
States Code, to strike limits on the Secretary of Defense's
authority to aid communities adversely affected by base
realignments and closures and other defense program changes.
Section 2824--Sense of Congress Regarding Consideration of National
Defense Industrial Base Interests During Base Closure and Realignment
Commission Review of Department of Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Recommendations
This section would express the Sense of Congress that
national defense industrial base interests are part of military
value and that the Base Closure and Realignment Commission
should consider such interests when reviewing and analyzing the
Secretary of Defense's closure and realignment recommendations.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Part I--Army Conveyances
Section 2831--Modification of Land Conveyance, Engineer Proving Ground,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia
This section would amend section 2836 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B
of Public Law 107-107) to change the type of facility received
by the Army as part of an exchange related to construction of
the Fairfax County Parkway Extension. Current law provides for
the Army to receive funds for replacement of an administrative
building located on land provided by the Army. This section
would allow for the construction of the higher priority fire
station instead.
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Bothell, Washington
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey approximately one acre at the Army Reserve Center in
Bothell, Washington, for the purpose of supporting the
provision of fire and emergency medical aid services. In
exchange, the Army shall receive in-kind consideration equal to
not less than the fair market value of the conveyed property.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, San
Diego, California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey approximately 230 acres along the eastern boundary of
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California, to the County of
San Diego, California, for the purpose of permitting the county
to preserve the property as open space and reopen the tract
known as the Stowe Trail to public use. In exchange, the Navy
shall receive in--kind consideration equal to not less than the
fair market value of the conveyed property.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
Section 2851--Purchase of Build-To-Lease Family Housing, Eielson Air
Force Base, Alaska
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to purchase the interest of the developer of a 300-unit
military family housing project at Eielson Air Force Base,
Alaska. This project is currently leased by the Secretary as
``section 801'' housing.
Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Air Force Property, Jacksonville,
Arkansas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, for consideration, approximately 45 acres around an
existing railroad in Jacksonville, Arkansas.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 2861--Lease Authority, Army Heritage and Education Center,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
lease portions of the Army Heritage and Education Center,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania to the Military Heritage Foundation for
revenue-generating activities and other purposes. As
consideration, the foundation would pay amounts not to exceed
the costs of operation of the facility. This authority is
consistent with section 4772 of title 10, United States Code,
which provides leasing authority to the Secretary of the Army
related to the use of the National Museum of the United States
Army.
Section 2862--Redesignation of McEntire Air National Guard Station,
South Carolina, as McEntire Joint National Guard Base
This section would redesignate McEntire Air National Guard
Station, South Carolina as McEntire Joint National Guard Base
in recognition of the use of the installation to house both Air
National Guard and Army National Guard assets.
Section 2863--Assessment of Water Needs for Presidio of Monterey and
Ord Military Community
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment of current and future needs of the
Department of Defense for water for the Presidio of Monterey
and the Ord military community by April 7, 2006, and to provide
the results of that assessment to Congress.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $16.4 billion for the national
security activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2006. Of this amount, $9.4 billion is for the programs of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, and $7.0 billion is
for environmental and other defense activities. The committee
recommends $16.4 billion, the amount of the budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request contained $9.4 billion for the National
Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2006. The
committee recommends $9.1 billion, a decrease of $296.4
million.
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
The budget request contained $1,421.0 million for directed
stockpile work. The committee recommends $1,372.6 million, a
decrease of $48.4 million.
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
The budget request contained $4.0 million for the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) study.
The committee understands that the Commander, United States
Strategic Command has stated that the results from the sled
test conducted under this program have applicability to various
types of penetrators that may be options for use against Hard
and Deeply Buried Targets (HDBTs). Based on the applicability
of the sled test results to various options for HDBT defeat,
the committee believes that this study is more appropriately
conducted under a program element within the Department of
Defense.
The committee recommends no funding for the RNEP study
under the Department of Energy, but instead authorizes a
related study effort within the Department of Defense elsewhere
in this Act.
Reliable Replacement Warhead program
The budget requests $9.4 million within Directed Stockpile
Work for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
The committee notes that in the aftermath of the Cold War,
the Stockpile Stewardship Program was designed to enable the
continued certification of the existing stockpile in the
absence of nuclear testing. The National Nuclear Security
Administration's Life Extension Program is a component of the
Stockpile Stewardship program to ensure the continued safety,
surety and certification of the stockpile by extending the life
of nuclear weapons that have already undergone testing. The
2001 Nuclear Posture Review and other studies by the Department
of Defense and Department of Energy have highlighted the
importance of looking past the Cold War-era designed defense
nuclear complex to a responsive infrastructure of the future,
one objective of which is to be able to produce replacement
warheads.
The committee firmly believes that the nation must ensure
that the nuclear stockpile remains reliable, safe, and secure
and that national security requires transforming the Cold War-
era nuclear complex. Thus, the committee supports the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program. To clearly articulate the
congressional intent underlying this program authorization, the
committee further states the key goals of the program.
First and foremost, in order to serve as a credible
strategic deterrent, the stockpile must be reliable, safe, and
secure. The committee understands that by designing and
replacing components and warheads in our existing arsenal, the
nuclear weapons complex can take full advantage of modern
design techniques, more environmentally safe materials, and
efficient manufacturing processes in a way that can make our
arsenal more reliable, safe, and secure. The committee believes
that the Reliable Replacement Warhead program offers the
opportunity to improve certain safety features. In particular,
the committee expects the National Nuclear Security
Administration to inform Congress about the extent to which the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program can improve security
features to prevent accidental or unauthorized detonations. The
committee expects that the budgeting and reporting of the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program will be consistent with
the traditional nuclear weapon acquisition process of
designating work related to new weapon or weapon modification
development and production. Based on Nuclear Weapons Council
briefings, the committee encourages the Department of Defense
and the Department of Energy to focus initial Reliable
Replacement Warhead efforts on replacement warheads for
Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. The committee
understands that the purpose of the program is to fulfill the
current mission requirements of the stockpile.
A second objective of this program is to further reduce the
likelihood of the resumption of nuclear testing by increasing
warhead design margin and manufacturability.
The third objective of utilizing components whose basic
design parameters are well understood, or are certifiable
without the need to resume underground nuclear testing
reinforces the second objective. As part of the report required
by section 3111 (c), the committee expects a discussion of how
these two objectives will be accomplished, including the degree
to which reliable replacement warheads will be based on design
parameters that have been proven through prior successful
nuclear tests.
Fourth, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program has a goal
of ensuring the country has a nuclear infrastructure that is
flexible enough to meet future requirements that cannot be
predicted today. The goal of achieving a more flexible nuclear
infrastructure was identified in the 2001 Nuclear Posture
Review, but has not been realized in large part due to a lack
of program focus. The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program will
try to provide that focus.
Fifth, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program may permit
reductions in the size of the nuclear stockpile since fewer
weapons should have to serve as a hedge against technical
uncertainty and reliability concerns. As part of the report
required by section 3111 (c), the committee expects an estimate
of the reductions that can be achieved if the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program is successfully implemented. The
report should discuss options for future dismantlement based on
stockpile reductions that may be achieved if the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program is successful.
Sixth, and related to the responsive infrastructure
objective, is the goal of ensuring that the human capital
aspect is not neglected. The nuclear complex is rapidly losing
its design and production expertise, a concern highlighted by
several studies in the past decade. The Reliable Replacement
Warhead program will help train and sustain the weapons
designers and engineers whose expertise is essential in
ensuring the stockpile remains, reliable, safe and secure into
the future.
Finally, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program should
serve as a complement to and potential future replacement for,
the existing Life Extension Programs. The potential of the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program to provide for a credible
nuclear deterrent and a flexible, responsive infrastructure in
a cost-effective manner is an important aspect of this program.
At some future point, the committee would expect a life-cycle
cost estimate for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program in
addition to the requirement to provide five-year cost estimates
in the annual budget justification documents. This life-cycle
cost estimate would specifically address the issue of pit
production, and whether a modern pit facility is still required
if the program leads to a significantly reduced arsenal. For
the purposes of the report required by section 3111, the
committee understands that submission of life-cycle costs
estimates would be premature. The report required by section
3111 should, however, provide an assessment as to when a life-
cycle cost estimate, to include all construction and
decommissioning costs, would be feasible based on projected
program milestones. The report should also discuss the impact
on the Department of Defense, specifically its delivery
platforms, of introducing reliable replacement warheads, to
include a cost estimate of the potential impacts.
The report required by section 3111 should detail the
planned use of fiscal year 2006 and prior year funds. The
report is required by March 1, 2007, but the committee also
requires an interim report due by March 1, 2006, that provides
as much information on the required report topics as can be
provided.
The committee recommends $9.4 million for the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program, the amount of the budget request.
Should additional funds be required above those authorized and
appropriated, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to
submit a reprogramming request to the congressional defense
committees.
Stockpile Stewardship Campaigns
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160) directed the Department of Energy to
``establish a stewardship program to ensure the preservation of
the core intellectual and technical competencies of the United
States in nuclear weapons.'' In response, the Department of
Energy developed the Stockpile Stewardship Program to
``increase the understanding of the basic phenomena associated
with nuclear weapons, to provide better predictive
understanding of the safety and reliability of weapons, and to
ensure a strong scientific and technical basis for future
United States nuclear weapon policy objectives.'' Subsequently
in 1999, the Department developed a new program activity
structure for Stockpile Stewardship that included a series of
what the Department called ``campaigns,'' which are technically
challenging, multiyear, multifunctional efforts designed to
develop and maintain the critical capabilities needed to enable
continued certification of the stockpile into the foreseeable
future, without underground testing. The National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) is responsible for carrying out
the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Six individual science campaigns are intended to provide
the scientific capability to support the stockpile. Two
campaigns-Primary Assessment Technologies and Secondary
Assessment Technologies-set the requirements for the
experimental data and computer models needed to assess and
certify nuclear weapons. Four other campaigns-Dynamic
Materials, Advanced Radiography, Advanced Simulation and
Computing, and Inertial Confinement Fusion-provide experimental
and computational support. Since fiscal year 2001, NNSA has
spent $5.8 billion on these activities.
The Department set a series of goals and related milestones
for the campaigns to achieve by the 2005-2010 time frame.
Achieving these goals was technically challenging and depended
on the timely completion of major facilities such as the
National Ignition Facility and the Dual Axis Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test Facility, both of which have experienced
major delays due to problems with project management.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) told
the committee that the GAO was limited in its ability to assess
the performance of the campaigns in achieving their goals
because NNSA did not have an adequate planning process for
approving and tracking campaign plans and milestones. In
addition, GAO found that the original goals for the Primary
Assessment Technologies and Secondary Assessment Technologies
Campaigns had been modified and extended to the 2010-2014
timeframe. GAO also found that despite their interdependency,
NNSA's campaigns were not well integrated.
GAO's findings are consistent with the committee's
observations about NNSA's fiscal year 2006 budget request,
where the goals for the campaigns are related principally to
the conduct of experiments on certain facilities and the
development of the quantification of margins and uncertainties
methodology. The budget request does not clearly discuss the
campaigns' goals and the extent to which they have been
achieved. In addition, the budget request makes little mention
of how the campaigns' actions are integrated to achieve these
goals.
The committee notes that NNSA is proposing to spend several
billion dollars more on these activities over the next five
years. Therefore, before such large funds are expended, the
committee believes that NNSA should provide a full accounting
of what has been achieved to date and what NNSA expects to
achieve over the next five years. Specifically, the committee
directs the Administrator of the NNSA to provide, with the
fiscal year 2007 budget submission, a report detailing:
(1) The original goals of the six campaigns intended
to provide the scientific capability to support the
stockpile;
(2) The degree to which these goals have been
achieved and, where applicable, the reasons for NNSA's
failure to achieve these goals;
(3) The impact of NNSA's success or failure to
achieve these goals on its ability to assess the safety
and reliability of the stockpile;
(4) The specific goals NNSA plans to achieve over the
next five years in order to ensure that it has the
capability to continue to assess the stockpile without
underground nuclear testing; and
(5) How the NNSA plans to integrate and prioritize
the activities of the campaigns in order to achieve
these goals in a cost effective manner.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
The budget request contained $1,631.4 million for Readiness
in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF).
The committee has been encouraged by the progress made in
the reduction of deferred maintenance backlogs in the defense
nuclear complex. The committee also supports the
Administrator's efforts 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 committee recommends an increase of $8.6 million for
design and construction at the Pantex Production Plant for the
following projects: $1.0 million to complete the design of the
High Explosives Pressing Facility (Project 04-02), $2.0 million
to complete the design of the Component Evaluation Facility
(Project 05-03), and $5.6 million to accelerate work on the
Pantex Plant Building 12-64 Production Bays Upgrade (project
05-D-401).
The committee understands that accelerated completion of
the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) will shrink the overall
footprint of the Y-12 complex. The committee recommends an
increase of $15.1 million to accelerate project design at the
Y-12 plant as follows: $10.0 million for the UPF (Project 06-
05), $1.7 million for the Highly Enriched Uranium Chemical
Project, and $3.4 million for the Uranium Metallurgy Project,
the latter two projects directly supporting the UPF.
The committee provides an additional $3.1 million for
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as follows: $2.1 million
for one-time Beryllium safety improvements at the Contained
Firing Facility and $1.0 million for a size-reduction station
for radioactive waste.
The committee provides additional funds for replacement of
aging equipment, correction of deferred maintenance, and
disposition of legacy materials consistent with the National
Nuclear Security Administration approved 10 year comprehensive
site plan as follows: $5.6 million at the Kansas City Plant,
$6.0 million at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
specifically for configuration management requirements related
to the Superblock, and $10.0 million at the Pantex Production
Plant.
The committee recommends $1,679.8 million, an increase of
$48.4 million for RTBF.
Environmental Projects and Operations
The fiscal year 2006 National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) budget request contained $174.4 million
for Environmental Projects and Operations due to the proposed
transfer of responsibility for certain environmental management
activities from the Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Management to the NNSA. The reason stated for
this realignment is that the transfer aligns responsibility
with accountability for environmental activities at NNSA sites
consistent with the intent of the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (Public Law 106-65, title 32).
Contrary to what is stated in the budget request, the
intent of Congress in drafting the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (``NNSA Act'') was expressly to not permit a
transfer of environmental activities to NNSA. While section
3291(a) of the NNSA Act transferred certain functions from the
Department of Energy to NNSA, section 3291(c), ``Environmental
Remediation and Waste Management Activities,'' states that the
Secretary may determine to transfer responsibility for that
activity to another element of the Department. That
``activity,'' specifically environmental remediation and waste
management components of those activities transferred to NNSA
in section 3291(a), was never transferred to the NNSA. The
accompanying conference report language specifically states
that section 3291 would ``permit the Secretary of Energy to
transfer environmental and waste management activities to other
elements of the Department in consultation with the
Administrator and Congress.''
In short, the fiscal year 2006 budget request for NNSA
Environmental Projects and Operations conflicts with the NNSA
Act. The committee therefore authorizes no funds for these
activities within NNSA, but instead authorizes the requested
amount elsewhere in this Act under the Department of Energy's
Office of Environmental Management.
The committee also understands that both the Government
Accountability Office and the Secretary of Energy are currently
reviewing the relationship between the Department of Energy and
the NNSA under the NNSA Act. The committee encourages the
Secretary to inform the congressional defense committees of any
concerns relating to the environmental transfer issue or other
NNSA Act compliance concerns at the earliest opportunity. While
it is the intent of the committee to leave these environmental
activities under the Department of Energy's Office of
Environmental Management, the committee is open to hearing
additional justification from the Secretary why such a transfer
should occur in the future.
Safeguards and Security
The committee continues to be deeply concerned with
safeguards and security practices throughout the complex. The
committee understands that the fiscal year 2006 safeguards and
security budget request fully funds activities that will bring
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) complex
into compliance with the April 2003 Design Basis Threat (DBT)
by the end of fiscal year 2006. The committee also understands
that in October 2004, the Secretary of Energy directed certain
changes in the DBT requirements for the complex with a target
compliance goal of the end of fiscal year 2008. The committee
notes that updated site vulnerability assessments for
compliance with the October 2004 DBT changes are due to the
Administrator in July 2005.
The committee is concerned that the increased security
requirements resulting from the October 2004 DBT have not been
subjected to an independent risk and cost analysis. The
committee directs the Secretary to conduct a risk and cost
analysis study of the increase in security requirements from
the April 2003 DBT to the October 2004 DBT. The Secretary shall
submit a report on this analysis to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2006.
The committee supports the Administrator's efforts to
enhance security practices through consolidation of nuclear
material at individual sites and throughout the complex. The
committee notes that the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure
Task Force is currently evaluating options for consolidation of
nuclear material in the broader context of transforming the
defense nuclear complex. The committee directs the
Administrator to submit with the fiscal year 2007 budget
materials its plans to achieve consolidation of nuclear
material throughout the complex.
The committee notes that the Department of Energy's Office
of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance submitted a
report in January 2005 on federal oversight of security
operations within the NNSA complex, which detailed certain
shortcomings. The committee directs the Secretary to submit to
the congressional defense committees a follow-up report on the
status of corrective actions for federal oversight recommended
in the January 2005 report by March 1, 2006.
National Nuclear Security Administration Advisory Committee
The committee notes that shortly after the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) was created, the first NNSA
Administrator established an independent committee to advise
the Administrator on a wide range of issues, particularly
technical areas. This advisory committee was not renewed after
the first two years for several reasons, including the
administrative burden of supporting the committee. The
committee recognizes the complexity and importance of the
NNSA's mission, and notes it faces important decisions about
ensuring the reliability of our nuclear stockpile, exploring
new initiatives such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program, and maintaining a high level of security in a cost-
effective manner. The committee further recognizes the value of
sound, balanced information and counsel from independent,
credible sources on a range of technical and security matters.
The committeeencourages the NNSA Administrator to consider
reinstating the advisory committee to assist the NNSA in its
deliberations on the important challenges it faces.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
The budget request contained $1,637.2 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 inability to resolve government to
government agreements, especially liability 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 $1,515.2 million, a
decrease of $122.0 million.
Nonproliferation and verification research and development
The budget request contained $272.2 million for
nonproliferation and verification research and development
activities.
The committee notes that the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, which performs critical nonproliferation research
and development work for the NNSA, is scheduled to vacate their
facilities at Hanford Site Area 300 in 2009 and that
replacement facilities are required. The budget contains $5.0
million for project engineering and design for replacement
research facilities (project 06-D-180). The committee
recommends $280.2 million, an increase of $8.0 million to
accelerate design of the replacement facility.
International Materials Protection and Cooperation
The budget request contained $343.4 million for
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation
(MPC&A). The committee is encouraged by the progress made in
several MPC&A programs, especially those associated with the
Russian Naval Complex and Strategic Rocket Forces. The
committee recommends $363.4 million, an increase of $20.0
million as follows: $10.0 million for Civilian Nuclear Sites
and $10.0 million for National Programs and Sustainability.
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium Production
The budget requests $132.0 million for the Elimination of
Weapons Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP) program. The
committee understands that the EWGPP program is seeking
international funding to support the Zheleznogorsk reactor
project. While fully supporting the concept of international
funding for this project, the committee also wants to ensure
that sufficient financial support is demonstrated early enough
in the project to keep the Zheleznogorsk reactor shutdown on
schedule. The committee recommends $207.0 million, an increase
of $75.0 million for the Zheleznogorsk project.
Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility
The budget request contained $653.1 million for Fissile
Materials Disposition, the goal of which is to eliminate
surplus Russian plutonium and surplus U.S. plutonium and highly
enriched uranium. With respect to the plutonium disposition
programs, the goal is to eliminate 68 metric tons of United
States and Russian surplus weapons-grade plutonium in
accordance with the September 2000 United States-Russia
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, and with
Congressional direction to conduct both the United States and
Russian disposition programs in parallel. This effort, based on
the use of Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facilities to be
built in both the United States and Russia, is referred to as
the MOX program.
Of the $653.1 million requested for Fissile Materials
Disposition, approximately $460.0 million is for the United
States-Russia MOX program, of which $338.6 million is for
construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at
the Savannah River Site. Due to an inability to resolve
disagreements regarding liability protections for U.S. work
performed in Russia, the MOX program has experienced
significant delays. When the MOX project was first authorized
in 1999, the projected start date for physical construction of
the Savannah River Site MOX facility was in 2002. During the
period covered by fiscal years 1999-2005, $961.1 million has
been appropriated for the Savannah River Site MOX facility, yet
actual construction has not commenced. According to data
received from the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration as of March 31, 2005, the Savannah
River Site MOX construction project had an unobligated balance
of $552.1 million.
The committee fully supports the objective of the Fissile
Materials Disposition program, including the objectives of the
MOX program. The committee also recognizes that resolution of
the liability issue between the United States and Russia is
being pursued at the highest levels of the Administration.
However, given other pressing budgetary needs, the committee
can no longer continue to fully fund the MOX project given the
apparent lack of progress in liability agreement negotiations
and the significant funds that remain unobligated from prior
year MOX program appropriations.
The committee supports the overall objectives of the
nonproliferation program and will look to fund those activities
that can be reasonably executed. The committee recommends $88.6
million for the Savannah River Site Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility, a decrease of $250.0 million. Of the
$88.6 million authorized for the Savannah River MOX
construction project in fiscal year 2006, no more than $50.0
million may be obligated prior to certification by the
Secretary of Energy that both the United States and Russia
agree that the MOX liability issue has been satisfactorily
resolved. In the event that additional funds are required
(above prior year balances and this $88.6 million
authorization), the Secretary of Energy is directed to submit a
reprogramming request to the congressional defense committees.
Section 3182 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314)
establishes that the Secretary of Energy shall commence certain
payments to the state of South Carolina if the MOX production
objective is not met by January 1, 2011. Based on the liability
agreement incurred delays in MOX facility construction, the
committee is concerned that this production objective may not
be met and that these payments will impact future year budgets
for not only the MOX program, but for all defense nuclear
nonproliferation programs. The committee directs the Secretary
to submit, with the fiscal year 2007 budget request, a report
that outlines various options for MOX program funding in the
event that the MOX production objective is not met, as well as
alternative plutonium disposition strategies in the event that
MOX liability issues are not resolved and the program is
terminated.
Thorium fuel project
The committee is concerned that disposition of surplus
plutonium in Russia remains a significant challenge. Even if
the MOX project is successful in the long-term, the committee
notes that there remain stocks of plutonium for which there is
no disposition path. The committee believes that pursuing other
plutonium disposition options, including the thorium-based fuel
cycle, is important. The committee recommends $5.0 million to
continue the thorium-based fuel program currently being
conducted by the Radkowsky Thorium-Plutonium Incinerator (RTPI)
project in Russia.
In particular, the Department of Energy is directed to
continue design studies to optimize the design for plutonium
disposition, to fabricate and irradiate plutonium alloy fuel,
and to initiate other qualification tasks to implement the
coordinated RTPI program. The $5.0 million shall be made
available for this work in Russia on the conditions and only to
the extent that the Federal Atomic Energy Agency agrees that
the RTPI project should be conducted under the Plutonium
Management and Disposition Agreement of 2000 and that
Department of Energy personnel are granted access to the
fabrication facilities at Elemash and the Siberian Chemical
Combine in order to further evaluate the work performed.
The committee further directs the Department to submit with
the fiscal year 2007 budget its recommendations for the future
of the thorium fuel program.
Global Threat Reduction Initiative
The budget request contained $97.9 million for the Global
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). The committee supports the
goal of this program, especially those activities conducted
outside the United States. The committee recommends $117.9
million, an increase of $20.0 million to be used solely for
GTRI activities outside the United States.
Section 3132 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375)
stated that it was the sense of Congress that the security,
including the rapid removal or secure storage of high-risk,
proliferation-attractive materials, radiological materials, and
related equipment worldwide is a matter of national security.
Although section 3132 contains a detailed list of activities
that may be included as part of the GTRI (also referred to as
``Global Cleanout''), it was the intent of Congress to grant
broad authority to conduct a range of activities to seize and
secure nuclear related materials in order to reduce the threat
of nuclear proliferation. It was not the intent of Congress
that the enumerated activities in section 3132 be narrowly
construed. For example, Congress would expect that other
materials and activities not expressly listed, but that are of
concern from a nuclear non- proliferation perspective would be
covered by the authority granted in section 3132. Though not
explicitly called out, Congress would clearly envision the
following activities to be covered by the authority granted in
this section: safeguarding and securing a nuclear weapon, and
securing or converting the fuel from critical assemblies and
pulsed reactors, isotope production reactors, and icebreaker
reactors. This enumeration is meant to be illustrative but not
exhaustive.
The Secretary of Energy should broadly interpret the
Department of Energy's authority under section 3132 to carry
out those activities worldwide involving the removal or storage
of materials that will reduce the threat posed by nuclear
proliferation. The committee expects that the final report and
plan required under section 3132 will include a prioritized
listing of all types of high-threat facilities, including those
discussed above, and that the plan required by section 3132
will include steps to address all of those facilities judged to
pose high-priority threats.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $7,002.5 million for
environmental and other defense activities. The committee
recommends $7,298.9 million, an increase of $296.4 million.
Environmental Management Authority Transfer
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) budget
contained $174.4 million for environmental projects and
operations at NNSA sites that were proposed by the Secretary of
Energy to be transferred from the Office of Environmental
Management to the Administrator of the NNSA commencing in 2006.
As noted above, the committee finds that the proposed transfer
is contrary to the intent of the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (Public Law 106-65, title 32) and does not
authorize these activities within the NNSA budget request.
The committee authorizes $174.4 million for these same
activities under the Office of Environmental Management and
directs the Secretary to realign the NNSA site environmental
projects and operations funding to the appropriate accounts
within the Office of Environmental Management.
Hanford Defense Site Acceleration Completion Activities
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2006 budget
request proposed an overall reduction of $550.0 million for
Environmental Management Activities, with over $290.0 million
of the cleanup funding reductions proposed at the Hanford site
in Washington. While noting that the Department of Energy (DOE)
had rational justifications for many of the proposed reductions
at Hanford, the committee also understands that the cleanup
efforts at Hanford, the largest cleanup site in the complex,
must move forward in those areas where progress can be made in
fiscal year 2006 and beyond.
The budget request contained $625.9 million for the Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant (Project 01-D-416). It is
the largest and most complex nuclear design and construction
project in the nation, and is critically important for
successful cleanup of the Hanford site. The project consists of
three major nuclear facilities to pre-treat and vitrify high-
level waste that is currently located in underground tanks at
Hanford. The committee notes that while construction activities
at the Waste Treatment Plant were curtailed in response to new
seismic information, the effect of the pending engineering
reevaluation of seismic design issues will most likely result
in an overall increase in the cost of the project. The
committee recommends an increase of $64.1 million for the Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant (Project 01-D-416) to
restore funding to the $690.0 million level established in the
DOE's contract to build this facility. The committee does not
want to see this project slowed down by a lack of funds. The
committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2006, on the
overall cost analysis of the project and the impact of the new
seismic data on both the design and construction of the WTP.
The committee encourages the Department to work with the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to ensure full
transparency into this engineering analysis effort.
The budget request contained $301.9 million for Radioactive
Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization Disposition (Project ORP-0014).
While the committee notes that there is continuing legal
uncertainty over certain wastes associated with this project,
there also are cleanup activities that can proceed if
additional funding is provided. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $44.9 million for Radioactive Liquid
Tank Waste Stabilization Disposition provided that the
Secretary of Energy can assure the committee that these funds
can be used for additional single-shell tank waste retrieval
activities in a manner consistent with the DOE's understanding
of the legal uncertainty associated with certain tank wastes.
The committee encourages the Department to continue to work
with the state of Washington to resolve these legal
uncertainties.
The budget request contained $70.8 million for Nuclear
Facility Decontamination & Decommissioning (D&D) at Hanford
(Project RL-0040). The committee understands that increased
funding is needed to ensure the River Corridor project meets
its completion date to allow shrinkage of the Hanford site
footprint. The committee recommends an increase of $13.0
million for Nuclear Facility D&D (Project RL-0040).
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
The budget request contained $351.0 million within Defense
Nuclear Waste Disposal for the Yucca Mountain Project, an
increase of $122.3 million from the fiscal year 2005 defense
appropriations. The committee fully supports the budget request
and the need for a permanent deep geologic repository for high
level radioactive waste (HLW).
This is a critical time for the Yucca Mountain regulatory
process in preparation for submitting a construction license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
While the Yucca Mountain project has encountered a series
of obstacles over the last year that have pushed the opening
date back from 2010 to 2012, the need for transparency with the
Licensing Support Network should be a priority. The recent
discovery of faulty data from the United States Geological
Survey has further stalled the licensing process, and the
committee hopes this issue will be resolved soon in order to
prevent further delays.
Additionally, until the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) approves a new environmental radiation standard for
storage at Yucca Mountain, the program will experience further
delays in submitting the licensing application to the NRC,
therefore opening in 2012. In July 2004, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the EPA's initial
standard of projecting the Yucca storage compliance period out
10,000 years, citing that the EPA had violated the National
Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486) by not authorizing a
standard consistent with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
finding for the compliance period, which was over 400,000
years.
The recently published NAS study on the danger of storing
spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in pools at nuclear power plants
reinforces the need for tight security over SNF and the
consolidation of HLW into one repository, which could be stored
underground and safe from a potential hostile attack. The
committee fully supports the budget request for the Yucca
Mountain project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear
Security Administration for fiscal year 2006, including funds
for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation
programs, naval reactor programs, and the Office of the
Administrator.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Management
This section would authorize funds for defense
environmental management activities for fiscal year 2006,
including funds for defense site acceleration completion and
defense environmental services.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize funds for other defense
activities for fiscal year 2006.
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear
waste disposal for fiscal year 2006.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3111--Reliable Replacement Warhead Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
carry out a Reliable Replacement Warhead program to develop
reliable replacement components that are producible and
certifiable for the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. This
section establishes goals for the program and requires a report
to Congress.
Section 3112--Report on Assistance for Comprehensive Inventory of
Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
submit a report to Congress evaluating past efforts of the
United States to encourage a proper accounting for and securing
of Russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons, and to recommend U.S.
actions that are most likely to contribute to a complete
inventory and security of such weapons. Following the fall of
the Berlin Wall, the United States withdrew its nonstrategic
nuclear weapons from Europe and Asia. Following the collapse of
the Soviet Union, the Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan all gave
up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union.
The Russian Federation, however, continued to produce and
deploy new nuclear weapons while increasing their importance
and role in war-fighting plans. Unfortunately, as these events
occurred, many Russian and non-Russian analysts expressed
growing concern about the reliability of Russia's control over
its nuclear capabilities, particularly its nonstrategic nuclear
weapons. The committee believes that the United States should
assist Russia to preserve that control and that the Secretary
of Energy's report on the means by which it might do so could
prove very helpful in guiding the future evolution of the
Department's Nuclear Nonproliferation programs.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $22.0 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2006. The
committee recommends the budget request.
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Waste Treatment Plant
The committee relies heavily on the technical expertise of
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) to ensure
that appropriate nuclear safety features are incorporated in
the Waste Treatment Plant design. The DNFSB has and should
continue to provide nuclear safety oversight in such areas as
seismic and geotechnical engineering, concrete chemistry, fire
protection, process chemistry, plant mechanical systems, safety
systems, and hazard analysis.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize $22.0 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2006, the
amount of the request.
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 that a stockpile
of strategic and critical materials be maintained 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 excess to
Department of Defense (DOD) needs and are now being disposed
of. As a result of recent market conditions, particularly with
respect to titanium, and the increasing reliance on foreign
sources of supply for defense programs, the committee has
concerns about the DOD's ability to ensure the timely
availability of materials to meet the current needs of the
military services. The committee directs the Secretary to
review the 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 directs
the Secretary to report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2006, on the findings and conclusions.
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 2006. The section would also permit the use of additional
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after
Congress receives notification.
Section 3302--Revision of Fiscal Year 1999 Authority to Dispose of
Certain Materials in the National Defense Stockpile
This section would authorize increased sales of stockpile
materials through the end of fiscal year 2011.
Section 3303--Revision of Fiscal Year 2000 Authority to Dispose of
Certain Materials in the National Defense Stockpile
This section would authorize increased sales of stockpile
materials through the end of fiscal year 2011.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $18.5 million for fiscal year
2006 for the operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Maritime
Administration for Fiscal Year 2006
This section would authorize a total of $138.2 million for
fiscal year 2006, the amount contained in the budget request.
Of the funds authorized, $113.6 million would be for operations
and training programs, $3.5 million would be for administrative
expenses related to the operation of the loan guarantee program
authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as
amended, (46 App. United States Code 1271 et seq.), and $21.0
million would be for the disposal of obsolete vessels. Within
the funds included for operations and training programs, the
committee recommends $10.0 million to establish a pilot program
to provide for the reimbursement of non-emergency repairs for
vessels enrolled in the Maritime Security Program, and $1.2
million for additional payments to the state maritime academies
for increased fuel and operating costs.
Section 3502--Payments for State and Regional Maritime Academies
This section would increase the amount of assistance
provided to the six state maritime academies which are located
in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Texas, and
California. These six schools currently receive limited federal
support yet a substantial number of their graduates hold
federal licenses and support our increasing mariner
requirements in both the commercial and military sectors. The
current law provides for a payment from the Maritime
Administration of $200,000 dollars annually for cadet training
and facilities support. That amount has not been raised since
1989. This section would raise the level of support to $300,000
dollars in fiscal year 2006, $400,000 dollars in fiscal year
2007, and $500,000 in fiscal year 2008, and for each fiscal
year thereafter. This section would also require the Maritime
Administration to provide modest payments to the aforementioned
state maritime academies for the increasing cost of fuel used
for the operation of the academies' training ships.
Section 3503--Improvements to the Maintenance and Repair Reimbursement
Pilot Program
This section would require the Secretary of Transportation
to establish a pilot program to provide for the reimbursement
of certain U.S. Coast Guard required inspection, survey, and
repair expenses incurred by contractors who are operating
vessels enrolled in the Maritime Security Program. Section 3517
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Public Law 108-136) authorized the Secretary of Transportation
to establish, beginning in fiscal year 2006, a pilot program to
ensure that vessels enrolled in the Maritime Security Program
obtained their dry dockings and repairs in facilities located
in the United States. That same section required the Secretary
of Transportation to submit an analysis of the need for
maintenance and repair agreements to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services and
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
The report was quite supportive of a pilot program concluding
that ``the most significant benefit of the program is to assist
in maintaining an effective ship repair base that is available
to support national defense requirements.'' The report went on
to find that the direct benefit to U.S. shipyards would be
$28.2 million annually, and that additional benefits include
approximately $80.0 million in total economic impact on the
U.S. economy which translates into about 1100 jobs throughout
the economy. Federal taxes generated would be $16.5 million and
state and local taxes generated would be $8.0 million.
As a result of these findings, the committee pursuant to
this section will require current Maritime Security Program
contractors to enter into maintenance and repair agreements
with the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary of
Transportation will be required to reimburse these contractors/
owners for the difference between the fair and reasonable cost
of obtaining the maintenance or repair in the United States and
the fair and reasonable cost of obtaining the qualified
maintenance or repair outside the United States, in the
geographic region in which the vessel usually operates. With
the funds provided in this fiscal year, the Secretary should
phase in enrollments based on anticipated drydockings. Those
vessels requiring or scheduled for drydockings within the next
2 years should, subject to the availability of appropriations,
be enrolled first as part of the initial phase of this pilot
program. These maintenance and repair agreements will at a
minimum require that all work, including the dry docking,
associated with the U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection
(which is required of each vessel every five years) be
completed in a ship repair facility located in the United
States.
Section 3504--Tank Vessel Construction Assistance
This section would require the Secretary of Transportation
to enter into a tank vessel construction contract with a
prospective owner provided that appropriations are available.
Section 3505--Improvements to the Maritime Administration Vessel
Disposal Program
This section would require the Secretary of Transportation
to submit to Congress, within 120 days of enactment of this
Act, a comprehensive plan for management of the vessel disposal
program of the Maritime Administration (MARAD) in accordance
with the recommendations made in the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report titled, ``Maritime Administration: Improved
Program Management Needed to Address Timely Disposal of
Obsolete Ships,'' March 2005. The GAO report found that MARAD
will likely fall 100 ships short of its September 30, 2006,
Congressionally-mandated deadline to dispose of most of its
obsolete ship inventory. This anticipated failure is very
disappointing to the committee. The reason, according to GAO,
for ``MARAD's slow progress is due primarily to program leaders
not developing a comprehensive management approach that could
address the myriad of environmental, legal, and regulatory
challenges that the program faces.'' The committee expects that
the comprehensive management plan required of MARAD will result
in more rapid ship disposal, better value to the government and
improved communication with Congress on mission obstacles and
realistic resource needs.
The committee assumes that is it not beyond the Department
of Transportation's institutional competence to develop and
implement a plan to dispose of MARAD's obsolete ship inventory
with transparent contracting procedures. The section requires
that the plan use full and open competition to secure ship
disposal services, while utilizing domestic sources to the
maximum extent practicable. The committee recognizes the need
to maximize competition in order to obtain the best value to
the government and the value of maintaining domestic ship
disposal capacity. To maintain this capacity, MARAD should
consider how to promote better communication and coordination
with the domestic ship disposal industry as to policy making.
It is expected that MARAD will not cease ship disposal during
the development of the plan rather, that MARAD will continue to
dispose of ships in fiscal year 2006 using the funds authorized
elsewhere in this Act.
The section also provides, however, that if the Secretary
of Transportation fails to submit to Congress a timely and
responsive plan, he must conduct a full and open competition to
select a private ship disposal integrator to procure disposal
services for the Ship Disposal Office. If this becomes
necessary, the committee expects that the Department will
establish eligibility requirements to ensure that such a
contractor have sufficient project management and industry
experience to expeditiously secure the best value to the
government for disposal. If the Secretary submits an acceptable
plan, but fails to implement it, the Department can expect that
the committee will seriously consider whether the work of the
Ship Disposal Office ought to be continued in its current form.
Finally, under this section, the Secretary is required to
transfer no fewer than four obsolete combatant vessels to the
Navy for disposal by their disposal contractors. Elsewhere in
this Act, the committee has provided the U.S. Navy's ship
disposal program budget an increase of $8.0 million for a total
of $19.9 million. It is anticipated that these additional funds
will be used by the Navy, in part, to dispose of the obsolete
combatant vessels transferred from MARAD's inventory moored at
the James River, Virginia, Suisun Bay, California and Beaumont,
Texas facilities. For purposes of this section the committee
understands the phrase ``combatant vessels'' to include all
former U.S. Navy ships.
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 7, 2005.
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 2006.
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,
William J. Haynes II, General Counsel.
------
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.
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 2006.
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.
------
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 19, 2005 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 1815, as amended, by a vote of 61-
1.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and The Workforce,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hunter: Thank you for working with me in your
development of H.R. 1815, the ``National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006,'' specifically:
(1) Section 561, Enrollment in Overseas Schools of
Defense Dependents.
(2) Section 571, Extension of HEROES.
(3) Section 563, Continuation of Impact Aid on Behalf
of Certain Members Despite Change in Status of Member.
(4) Section 825, Extension of Provision regarding
Javits-Wagner-O'Day.
As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction
of the Education and the Workforce Committee. While I do not
intend to seek sequential referral of H.R. 1815, the Committee
does hold an interest in preserving its future jurisdiction
with respect to issues 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.
Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the
amendments to H.R 1815 and look forward to working with you on
these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
John Boehner, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. John Boehner,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
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 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 Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hunter: On May 18, 2005, the Committee on
Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 1815, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. As ordered reported by
the Committee on Armed Services, this legislation contains a
number of provisions that fall within the jurisdiction on the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. These provisions include the
following:
Section 314. Payment of Certain Private Cleanup Costs in
Connection with Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
Section 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2006.
Section 1042. Reestablishment of the EMP Commission.
Section 3201. Defense Nuclear Safety Board Authorization.
Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation
before the House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the bill.
By agreeing not to seek a sequential referral, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce does not waive its jurisdiction over these
provisions or any other provisions of the bill that may fall
within its jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee on Energy
and Commerce reserves its right to seek conferees on any
provisions within its jurisdiction which are considered in the
House-Senate conference, and ask for your support in being
accorded such conferees.
I request that you include this letter and your response as
part of the report on H.R. 1815 and as part of the
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the
House.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
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 Committee on Energy and Commerce 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 Energy and Commerce 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 Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Armed
Services ordered reported H.R. 1815, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Thank you for working
closely with the Committee on Government Reform on those
matters within the Committee's jurisdiction and especially for
including certain provisions of H.R. 2067, the Acquisition
System Improvement Act, in H.R. 1815 as reported by your
Committee. I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding
with respect to the consideration of H.R. 1815.
In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of
H.R. 1815, the Committee on Government Reform will not request
a sequential referral of the bill. However, the Committee does
so only with the understanding that this procedural route will
not prejudice the Committee's jurisdictional interest and
prerogatives in this bill or similar legislation.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform
should H.R. 1815 or a similar Senate bill be considered in
conference with the Senate. Finally, I request that you include
our exchange of letters on this matter in the Armed Services
Committee Report on H.R. 1815 and in the Congressional Record
during consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you
for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
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 Committee on Government Reform 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, theCommittee on Government Reform 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 Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Homeland Security
in H.R. 1815, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006.'' The coordination of the Nation's
preparedness against the threat of weapons of mass destruction
within the borders of the United States--a threat that is
synonymous with terrorism--is of particular jurisdictional
interest to the Committee on Homeland Security, as are
immigration and homeland security education initiatives. This
bill contains a number of provisions within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Homeland Security, including:
Section 347, which requires the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to
report on the impact on military readiness caused by
undocumented immigrants whose entry into the United
States involves trespassing upon operational military
ranges;
Section 1032, which would reassign existing
responsibilities for developing and carrying out a
program to test the Nation's preparedness for chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and related
materials from the Secretary of Defense to the
Secretary of Homeland Security;
Section 1033, which would expand the
responsibilities of Department of Defense domestic
response teams and require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to incorporate such response assets into the
National Response Plan and other existing Federal
response plans;
Section 1034, which would repeal section
1412 of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2312), which requires the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to provide
civilian personnel of Federal, State, and local
agencies with training and advice regarding the
emergency response to weapons of mass destruction; and
an amendment agreed to by the full Committee
on Armed Services, which adds a Sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, should establish a
National College of Homeland Security at the National
Defense University.
The Committee on Homeland Security acknowledges the
importance of H.R. 1815 and the need for the legislation to
move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a claim to
jurisdiction over certain 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 forego a sequential referral
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Homeland Security, 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 Committee on Homeland Security also asks that you
support our request to be conferees on the provisions over
which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference
on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Christopher, Cox,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
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 Committee on Homeland Security 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 Homeland Security 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 20, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chaiman: I understand that on Thursday, May 19,
2005 the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably reported
H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006. The bill includes a number of provisions that fall
within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of
Representatives.
The provisions within our Committee's jurisdiction are: (1)
Section 814, Requirement for contracting operations to be
included in interagency planning related to stabilization and
reconstruction; (2) Section 1021, Extension of Department of
Defense authority to support counter-terrorism; (3) Section
1022, Resumption of reporting requirement regarding Department
of Defense expenditures to support foreign counter-drug
activities; (4) Section 1023, Clarification of authority for
joint task forces to support law enforcement agencies
conducting counter-terrorism activities; (5) Section 1201,
Extension of humanitarian and civic assistance provided to host
nations in conjunction with military operations; (6) Section
1203, Military education exchanges between senior officers and
officials of the United States and Taiwan; (7) Section 1204,
Modification of geographic restriction under bilateral and
regional cooperation programs for payment of certain expenses
of defense personnel of developing countries; (8) Section 1205,
Authority for Department of Defense to enter into acquisition
and cross servicing agreements with regional organizations of
which the United States is not a member; (9) Section 1211,
report on acquisition by Iran of nuclear weapons; (10) Section
1212, Procurement sanctions against foreign persons that
transfer certain defense articles and services of the People's
Republic of China; (11) Title XIII, Cooperative Threat
Reduction with States of the Former Soviet Union; (12) Section
1606, Battlefield Accountability; and (13) Section 3112, Report
on assistance for comprehensive inventory of Russian non-
strategic nuclear weapons.
Pursuant to Chairman Dreier's announcement that the
Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule
for H.R. 815 and your desire to have the bill considered on the
House Floor next week, the Committee on International Relations
will not seek a sequential referral of the bill as a result of
including these provisions in question. I will seek to have the
Speaker appoint conferees from this Committee for these
provisions during any House-Senate conference committee, and I
would ask your support for that request.
I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of
the report on H.R. 1815 and as part of the record during
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
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.
1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006. 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.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hunter: In recognition of the desire to
expedite Floor consideration of H.R. 1815, the ``National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,'' the Committee
on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill.
There are several provisions contained in H.R. 1815 within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Specifically, section 551 clarifies the authority of military
personnel to provide limited legal assistance to members of the
military. This matter falls within the Committee's jurisdiction
under rule X(1)(l)(1) (``The judiciary and civil proceedings,
civil and criminal''). Sections 617 and 673 contain provisions
related to flexible payment of incentive pay and the repayment
of unearned portions of military bonuses. In relevant part,
sections 617 and 673 modify the dischargeability of specified
service pay and bonuses. These matters fall within the
Committee's jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(4)
(``Bankruptcy''). Section 1043 pertains to the modernization of
authority relating to security of defense property and
facilities. This provision falls within the Committee's
jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(7) (``criminal law
enforcement'') and rule X(1)(l)(19)(``subversive activities
affecting the internal security of the United States''). In
addition, sections 1421, 1432, and 1443 pertain to acquisition
reform at the Defense Department, and provide authority to
issue regulations pertaining to newly-established contract
review boards. These provisions fall under the Committee's rule
X(1)(l)(2) (``Administrative practice and procedure'').
The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these and
other provisions in the legislation are in no way altered or
diminished.
I would appreciate your including this letter in your
Committee's report on H.R. 1815 and the Congressional Record
during consideration of the legislation on the House Floor.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
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.
1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006. 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 20, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Congratulations on your successful
markup of H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006. You should be commended for your leadership
in marshaling this important legislation through your
committee.
I have reviewed the following provisions that are within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources:
Sections 331-336, Utah Test and Training
Range;
Section 1046, technical and clerical
amendments;
Section 2813, Papago Park military
reservation; and
Section 601, as it relates to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps.
Because of the longstanding history of these provisions, I
will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1815 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. 1815 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. 1815 enacted soon.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Pombo, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
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 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 Small Business,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Small Business in
H.R. 1815, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006.''
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1815 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over certain
provisions in the bill, I will 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 Committee on Small
Business.
In addition, the Committee on Small Business reserves its
authority to seek conferee status on any provisions of the bill
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask your
commitment to support any request by the Committee on Small
Business to be conferees on H.R. 1815 or related legislation.
Lastly, I request that you include this letter and your
response as part of your committee's report on the bill and the
Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on
the House floor.
Sincerely,
Donald A. Manzullo, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Donald A. Manzullo,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
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 Committee on Small Business 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 Small Business 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 20, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.
1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1815 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of
provisions of 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, that every effort will be made to
include any agreements worked out by staff of our two
Committees in amendments as the bill is taken to the House
Floor, and that a copy of this letter and of 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 cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure,
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 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.
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
Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the committee has requested but not received a cost
estimate for this bill from the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out
this bill.
H.R. 1815 would authorize appropriations of $435.8 billion
for fiscal year 2006 for the activities of the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the national security programs of the
Department of Energy (DOE). The budget authority implication of
the authorization of appropriations in H.R. 1815 is $441.6
billion. It would also authorize an additional $49.1 billion
emergency appropriation for fiscal year 2006 to support
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
The committee estimates that enacting H.R. 1815 would not
increase mandatory budget authority for fiscal year 2005 or the
following five years. In terms of discretionary and mandatory
budget authority, H.R. 1815 is within the allocation provided
by H.Con.Res. 95, which establishes the Congressional budget
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006 and sets
forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2005 and
2007 through 2010.
The committee has been in close and constant consultation
with the Congressional Budget Office and has provided copies of
H.R. 1815 as ordered reported on May 20, 2005, to develop an
estimate and comparison as required under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The committee expects to
receive this letter prior to the consideration of H.R. 1815 by
the House of Representatives.
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(c)(4) of rule XIII 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 military personnel and
their families, military readiness, the modernization and
eventual transformation of the armed forces, to enhance the
development of ballistic missile defenses, and to improve the
condition of military housing and facilities.
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 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise
for our men and women in uniform. The raise would
reduce the gap between average military and private
sector pay from 5.1 percent to 4.6 percent; and
(2) Eliminate the provision to pay reservists a
reduced housing allowance when mobilized to serve on
active duty for greater than 30 days and less than 140
days. It also clarifies that full basic housing
allowance would be paid to Reservists who are mobilized
for less than 30 days in connection with a contingency
operation; and
(3) Address manpower needs with an increase of 10,000
personnel in the Army and 1,000 in the Marine Corps in
2006. That would bring the Army end strength to 512,400
and the Marine Corps to 179,000. In addition, the
committee would provide the Secretary of Defense with
the authority to continue to grow the Army to 532,400
and the Marine Corps to 184,000 during the 2007 through
2009 period.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving force
protection for our troops, the objective of this legislation is
to:
(1) Provide several billion dollars in funding for
force protection initiatives, including armor for
vehicles, new munitions and improvised explosive device
jammers; and
With respect to the outcome-related goal of successfully
prosecuting continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
objective of this legislation is to:
(1) Provide an additional $49.1 billion in
contingency operations supplemental funding to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2006 to support the war on
terrorism's operational costs, personnel expenses and
the procurement of new equipment; and
With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving
military housing and facilities, the objective of this
legislation is to:
(1) Provide $12.1 billion for military construction
and military family housing programs; and
(2) Allow the secretaries of the military departments
to exchange surplus property for construction projects,
land, or housing.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, thecommittee 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. 1815. The
record of these votes is attached to this report.
The committee ordered H.R. 1815 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
The 2006 defense authorization bill is a good one that
makes advances on a variety of issues. We are pleased that the
committee worked largely in accordance with its bipartisan
tradition and that important initiatives were debated
seriously. Our concerns associated with the provision on women
in the military are addressed separately. A few of the bill's
other provisions warrant special mention here.
Personnel benefits
We are gratified that the Committee was able to include
provisions increasing Army end strength by 30,000 and Marine
Corps end strength by 4,000. We are also pleased that these
increases are paid for but believe they should be funded in the
base defense bill rather than in the separately authorized
``bridge'' supplemental fund.
Increases in recruiting and retention incentives, such as
special pays and reenlistment bonuses are particularly
important because of the difficult recruiting environment the
services are experiencing, and the Committee was wise to
include such provisions. Similarly, the adoption of Mr.
Butterfield's amendment providing that unemployable disabled
retirees may receive both military retired pay and VA
disability compensation is a vital step in ensuring that these
veterans are not penalized by virtue of their military service.
The Spratt amendment to ensure that service members serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan have the option of $250,000 worth of no-
cost life insurance is another beneficial action to ensure that
service members who sacrifice so much for our great nation are
adequately provided for. Finally, we regret that the Committee
did not adopt the amendment offered by Mr. Andrews that would
have established a $100,000 death gratuity for the families of
service members who are killed, regardless of whether the death
occurs in a combat zone or not.
National Defense Panel
The Department's ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review is
likely to be the most significant QDR conducted by the
Department of Defense. It will be the first to take full
account of the global war on terrorism and of lessons learned
from the war in Iraq. It must also deal with the coming
budgetary trade-offs among weapons programs and between those
programs and the people who serve. Because of the scope of the
review and the magnitude and impact of its potential
recommendations, Congress would benefit from an alternative
view--a group of experts reporting directly to Congress who
could both review the Department's work and offer competing
analysis and recommendations where necessary.
Mr. Skelton and Mr. Thornberry's amendment to create a
National Defense Panel would have done just that. It would have
provided Congress with a valuable set of perspectives on issues
of force structure, force sizing, and programmatic trade-offs
and would have helped the Armed Services Committee make more
informed decisions while conducting oversight and developing
legislation. The Panel would not have been a substitute for,
but a complement to, the committee's own oversight activities.
We appreciate the Chairman's pledge to conduct vigorous
analysis and oversight through a committee panel on these
matters, but believe that the independent National Defense
Panel would have benefited the Armed Services Committee's
efforts.
Nonproliferation policy
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, both candidates
agreed that the greatest risk to American national security is
that posed by a terrorist acquiring nuclear weapons. The
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs of the Department of
Defense and the Nuclear Nonproliferation programs of the
Department of Energy are critical for preventing this
catastrophic outcome. They are cost-effective programs for
dealing with a threat of this magnitude. The bipartisan Baker-
Cutler Task Force recommended in 2001 that the United States
should be spending $3 billion annually on these programs for
the next ten years. Yet the budget request for these two
departments this year is approximately $2 billion. From that
figure, the Armed Services Committee cut $122 million for the
mixed oxide fuel construction project at Savannah River.
The amendment offered by Mr. Spratt would have modestly
increased funding for nonproliferation programs in the
Departments of Defense and Energy by $80 million. It would have
restored CTR funding to the level it was at before September
11, 2001--a wise move considering the threat of illicit
materials getting into the hands of terrorists. It also would
have increased funding in the Department of Energy for several
activities that would greatly reduce the proliferation risk:
putting foreign scientists to work in non- weapons activities,
enhancing export controls to prevent the movement of dangerous
materials or weapons; repatriating Russian-origin highly-
enriched uranium from vulnerable research reactors while
converting some of these reactors to using low enriched
uranium; and for securing and facilitating the disposal of
vulnerable nuclear material located in countries of high
proliferation concern. All of this would have been accomplished
with a modest decrease from the ground-based mid-course missile
defense system that would have limited the number of silos at
Fort Greeley to 26. This amendment would have still provided a
preliminary missile defense capability while taking important
steps to decrease the risk posed by the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. We hope that the committee's
action will be reversed on the floor.
Ballistic missile defense
While ballistic missile defense (BMD) is an important
mission, we believe that the resources devoted to it are out of
proportion to the likelihood of the threat. We were therefore
disappointed that the Spratt amendment to increase non-
proliferation programs by transferring a modest $80 million
from the ground-based midcourse system--which has not had a
successful intercept test flight since October, 2002--was
rejected on a party-line vote. We are also puzzled by the
party-line rejection of the Tauscher Amendment requiring the
Office of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) to devise the
test plans for BMD systems being deployed rather than the
Missile Defense Agency. Independent OT&E is standard operating
procedure for every other major weapon system. We are
encouraged that the Senate adopted language similar to the
Tauscher Amendment in its version of the bill, and we will work
for its enactment in conference.
Authorization of supplemental appropriations
We also want to note that the Committee in this bill
authorizes almost $50 billion in fiscal year 2006 supplemental
appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the
global war on terror. These are funds separate and apart from
the $440-plus billion dollars we are authorizing as a part of
the regular fiscal year 2006 defense budget request.
Our concern is that the conflicts for which we are
authorizing this additional money are mature enough that their
costs are foreseeable and should be included in the regular
budget request--they should not be authorized as a supplemental
or ``bridge'' fund. Mr. Abercrombie's amendment in committee
made this point.
Budgeting in this fashion has adverse consequences. First,
by paying for the war by supplemental appropriations, the
Department of Defense has not had as much ``up front'' money as
it has needed to properly equip our troops with body armor,
vehicle armor and other equipment to protect them from
insurgent attacks. Budgeting for the war by supplemental
effectively causes the services to ``rob Peter to pay Paul''
until supplementals are approved, and important activities like
training have had to be postponed.
Second, the ``emergency'' designation that goes along with
supplemental appropriations hides the true extent of the
federal budget deficit because these expenses are not counted
against the regular defense budget for the year in which they
occur, but they do increase the size of the actual deficit.
This is not the way we should be paying for these costs of war.
Although we may disagree with the practice of funding
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through supplemental
appropriations, if we are going to go down this road, then it
is important that we not short-circuit the authorization
process. The effort to prescribe the purposes to which this
money should be put and to limit the extent to which items
unrelated to the war on terrorism are included is important.
Unfortunately, when supplemental appropriations do not go
through the authorization process, there has been a
disappointing trend to include extraneous, parochial items.
America is a nation at war. The fiscal year 2006 defense
authorization bill recognizes that exigency and provides those
who protect America with many of the tools they need to do the
job. We look forward to improving the bill even further as the
legislative process moves forward.
Ike Skelton.
Lane Evans.
John Spratt.
Marty Meehan.
Loretta Sanchez.
Silvestre Reyes.
Jim Cooper.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
Jim Langevin.
Steve Israel.
Tim Ryan.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Neil Abercrombie.
Adam Smith.
Robert A. Brady.
Vic Snyder.
Rick Larsen.
Mark E. Udall.
Susan A. Davis.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Kendrick B. Meek.
Mike McIntyre.
Robert E. Andrews.
G.K. Butterfield.
Gene Taylor.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
We are disappointed that H.R. 1815 includes Section 574,
policies designed to restrict the participation of women in our
military. Although purportedly a mere codification of existing
policy, what Congress is really saying to our brave women
currently serving throughout the world is that it has seen the
quality of their service and found it lacking. This is a
terribly disrespectful message to send to our troops,
especially in time of war. Worst of all, it is completely
unfounded. Military women have and continue to serve with honor
and distinction in the roles they've been assigned under the
existing policy. They are outstanding service members serving
equally alongside their male brothers-in-arms. In short, this
is a provision that rolls back advances women have made in the
armed services and will limit the future role of women in the
military.
We found the circumstances surrounding the introduction of
this issue and adoption of this language troubling in terms of
both process and substance.
In terms of process, it is important to note that the
Military Personnel Subcommittee has held no hearings this year
on the topic of the role of female service members in our
military. Neither has the Committee undertaken any sort of
systematic study or analysis of this issue. We are not even
aware of any anecdotal evidence suggesting that the current
policy's implementation has been problematic in any respect. In
short, we have seen no indication that a problem with the
integration of women in the armed forces exists, let alone one
that would warrant such a sweeping legislative solution.
The original amendment offered during the Military
Personnel Subcommittee mark-up was made available to committee
Democrats only the night before. This practice was repeated
when a new, full committee amendment was unveiled the night
before full committee mark up. Such actions, apparently
intended to constrain our ability to address the issue as
comprehensively as it deserved, are unfair, make for a less
informed debate and do a disservice to both the institution and
the country.
We are mindful of our constitutionally-mandated oversight
role concerning the armed forces. We can responsibly exercise
that role only when fully informed and properly prepared. An
issue with such wide ranging impact as this deserves the full
attention of the committee and the benefit of the complete
oversight process, both of which were sadly lacking in this
instance.
In terms of substance, the amendment offered in the
Military Personnel Subcommittee applied only to the Army. It
was seriously flawed. It referenced ``Forward Support
Companies'' which is a term of art referring to a very specific
type of Army unit. Those units were defined so broadly that the
Army estimated that over 20,000 women soldiers would be
precluded from serving in many of the units in which they are
currently serving--units that are making a huge contribution to
the war in Iraq and the global war on terrorism. Both the
Secretary of the Army and the Army Vice Chief of Staff wrote
the committee voicing their strong opposition to this
amendment. Nevertheless, the provision passed in subcommittee
by party line vote.
During full committee mark up, we were surprised to see
that the scope of the amendment had been expanded from applying
only to the Army to now applying to women in all the military
services. The amendment adopted in full committee is ostensibly
meant to codify an existing policy based on a memorandum
authored by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin in January 1994.
However, there are some key differences between that memorandum
and the provision now in this bill.
First, we do not think it is advisable to make statutory
changes at this time without further study and deliberation.
Codifing existing policies at this time without further study
and deliberation is to limit the flexibility our military
commanders require at the very time when they need it most--in
time of war. They need to be able to adapt to changing
battlefield conditions. The modern battlefield has changed so
that there is no longer a clear distinction between the front
lines and what has traditionally been regarded as relatively
secure rear areas. By codifying the kinds of units in which
service by women is forbidden and then further providing that
these units ``shall remain closed to the assignment of female
members,'' it will now be much more difficult to adjust to this
changed operational environment because a statutory change will
be required every time a service wants to move women into a
unit now on the prohibited list, regardless of whether the role
of that type of unit has changed or what that type of unit is
doing operationally. It is particularly unwise to inhibit
flexibility in the case of the Army, because that service is
undergoing a major force structure realignment. Although we
cannot now say for sure what operational impact this provision
will have, we believe that it will have an adverse effect on
units in the field.
We note that the Army has evolved its tactics so that units
where women serve can provide necessary support to combat units
and still comply with existing policies regarding women in
combat. Should this measure be passed into law, it will create
serious complications for our units currently engaged in
missions around the world. Those units will have to be
significantly reorganized in order to comply with a new
directive that requires ``particular care to minimally expose
female members of that service, either by doctrine or
employment, to direct ground combat.'' Operations, including
those in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be hindered as the Army
develops new procedures and tactics to comply with this
mandate. Unit readiness may be degraded as women are forced to
leave units in which they currently serve. It is clear that it
can only serve to constrain our commanders and in so doing, put
our soldiers at risk. This new requirement further belies the
assertion that only a codification of current policy is
intended.
Secondly, the eleven year old Aspin policy was obviously
meant to be a starting point for the role of women in the
military. In what can only be a conscious omission on the part
of those who drafted the instant provision, the sentence ``The
Services will use this guidance to expand opportunities for
women'' was not included in the text of the amendment. What was
once intended to be the base line from which advances were
expected is now the limit beyond which no advance can be made
without a further change in law. We believe that this will
exacerbate an already difficult recruiting and retention
environment.
Women play a key role in manning our forces. The message
that the country does not value their service may well drive
qualified women out of the service and away from already
struggling recruiters. When the Army struggles to make its
recruiting goal as it has recently, we need every qualified
person who will consider serving. The message the bill's
language sends can only compound the nation's already difficult
challenge to fill the ranks.
The bottom line is that women have a long and distinguished
record of military service to the country. Changes to their
current role should be undertaken only after full analysis and
careful deliberation. Process concerns aside, the language in
this bill is nothing more than a clever attempt to roll back
the current role of women in our military. We are concerned
that confusion and uncertainty will be created within the ranks
of our military during a time of war, battlefield operations
may suffer, recruiting and retention may be made more
difficult, and service members' lives may even be put at risk.
The committee should be affirming the nation's commitment to
and admiration of the quality, fidelity, and dedication of all
our service members. It is troubling and sad that the majority
has pursued such a misguided course.
Ike Skelton.
Vic Snyder.
John Spratt.
Silvestre Reyes.
Loretta Sanchez.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Rick Larsen.
Lane Evans.
Dan Boren.
Kendrick B. Meek.
Jim Cooper.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
Jim Langevin.
Steve Israel.
Marty Meehan.
Neil Abercrombie.
Adam Smith.
Robert A. Brady.
Mark E. Udall.
Susan A. Davis.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Tim Ryan.
Robert E. Andrews.
G.K. Butterfield.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Committee Democrats believe that the provisions of H.R.
1815 addressing the Reliable Replacement Warhead and the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator are both steps in the right direction,
but fall short of supporting a sensible, coherent strategy for
nuclear weapons.
Reliable Replacement Warhead
The Administration included the Reliable Replacement
Warhead (RRW) program in its budget request this year for the
first time, but provided scant justification for it. H.R. 1815
sets a legislative charter for the RRW program that includes
several objectives included at our behest. From our
perspective, the most significant of these are that the RRW
should:
Further reduce the likelihood of resuming
nuclear testing;
Rely on designs and components proven through
testing as much as practicable;
Achieve reductions beyond those currently
envisioned for the nuclear stockpile;
Not be used to produce warheads for new
nuclear missions;
Improve safety and security mechanisms on our
warheads; and
Be cost-effective and affordable.
As part of the stated rationale for the RRW program, the
National Nuclear Security Administration has expressed concern
that accumulated changes in aging weapons components could lead
to inadequate performance margins and reduced confidence in the
stockpile. This conjectural argument cannot and should not be
dismissed, but we note that the NNSA also has stated that the
Stockpile Stewardship program is working and that NNSA judges
all of the performance margins of individual weapon types in
the enduring stockpile to be adequate. Prominent scientific
advisory panels have noted that there are opportunities for
further enhancing weapon performance margins, such as adjusting
the boost gas components during regularly scheduled
maintenance.
Given the current satisfactory performance margins of the
enduring stockpile and the lack of an immediate need for a new
RRW warhead, Democrats strongly believe that the NNSA should
exercise rigorous self-discipline and utilize designs and
components that are well understood or have been previously
been proven through testing. The RRW program should not be used
as an excuse to resume nuclear testing. The statutory
objectives to further reduce the likelihood of resuming nuclear
testing and to rely upon designs and components that have been
proven through testing were included at our insistence.
We were disappointed that the majority could not agree that
the ultimate objective of the RRW program should be to help
ensure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT). If the RRW program is successful, technical uncertainty
about the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be
erased. Consequently, the main rationale against the CTBT--that
testing must be reserved as an option against technical
uncertainty--will be removed. We believe strongly that
ratification of the CTBT is the logical end-result of a
successful RRW program, yet the committee majority adamantly
refused to include ratification of the CTBT as an objective of
the program.
Democrats are willing to explore the concept of the RRW
program, but do not yet embrace it. In our opinion, the RRW
program is only worth of support if it:
Truly reduces or eliminates altogether the
need for nuclear testing;
Leads to dramatic reductions in the nuclear
arsenal, including complete dismantlement of the
weapons and safe disposal of fissile components;
Does not introduce new mission or new weapon
requirements, particularly for tactical military
purposes;
Reduces the reliance of the U.S. on nuclear
weapons and de-emphasizes the military utility of
nuclear weapons;
Significantly reduces the cost of maintaining
our nuclear weapon complex, to include avoiding the
need to build a modern pit facility;
Increases nuclear security and decreases the
risk of unauthorized or accidental launch and/or
detonation; and
Leads to ratification and entry into force of
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The charter we have agreed to in H.R. 1815 points in the
direction of these objectives, but not as explicitly as we
would have preferred. We will continue to work with our
colleagues to shape the RRW program to meet the above
objectives, which we consider to be the foundation of a
sensible nuclear strategy for our nation. It is important to
bear in mind that the RRW program is simply a concept at this
stage. Congress will not be in a position to know if the RRW
program can meet these ambitious objectives until the
Administration spells out its programmatic details. Many of the
specific reporting requirements in the bill were included at
our behest in order to produce a full accounting of the
objectives, methods, and costs of the RRW program. We will
reserve final judgment on the RRW program until we can evaluate
this information.
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
Similarly, the committee Democrats appreciate the fact that
the majority took the ``Nuclear'' portion out of the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator or ``RNEP'' program. Nonetheless, we
are concerned that the committee report language is written
vaguely enough that conventional testing of penetration weapons
could be used as a proxy to inform nuclear applications as
well.
Committee Democrats recognize the increasing proliferation
of hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs) and strongly support
efforts to hold these facilities at risk and, if necessary, to
defeat them militarily. However, we believe that conventional
means of holding HDBTs at risk are inherently more credible
than nuclear options and also hold greater promise of military
utility if used. Therefore, we believe the nation's security
interests are best served by focusing our limited resources on
conventional options.
The committee report as it currently stands supports a sled
test that can ``evaluate the feasibility of various options for
different types of penetrators.'' This language could be
construed to allow the sled test to inform whether a nuclear
payload could be used in high-speed penetration of hard
geologies. Moving the RNEP sled test out of the Department of
Energy budget and into the Air Force budget strongly indicates
the committee's preference for conventional payload penetration
testing, but we believe the Congress should go even further.
This sled test should be conducted in a manner that only
informs conventional payloads, and if this is not technically
feasible, there should be no further work in designing modified
or new nuclear weapon designs based on the sled test data. We
will strive to include this language in conference with the
Senate.
H.R. 1815 as currently written also includes $4.5 million
to evaluate how to integrate a conceptual nuclear ``bunker
buster'' onto the B-2 bomber. We believe it is premature to
begin integration engineering efforts for a weapon that should
never be designed and, at a minimum, is years away from being
designed. The committee's decision to delete RNEP funding from
the Department of Energy request and re-orient the nature of
the sled test to conventional penetrating weapons further
undermines the rationale for this request. In order to maintain
comity within the committee, we did not offer formal amendments
to H.R. 1815 to delete this funding. We plan to work with our
colleagues, however, during the remainder of the legislative
process to find a better use of this $4.5 million.
Committee Democrats believe that the pursuit of a tactical
nuclear RNEP impedes the nation's non-proliferation goals and
undermines the security of the United States by increasing the
appeal of nuclear weapons. It reduces the ability of our nation
to build a global consensus against the development or
potential use of nuclear weapons by our enemies or aspiring
nuclear powers. It also undercuts our ability to orchestrate
collective action against rogue nations or terrorists seeking
to acquire nuclear weapons.
The timing of the Administration's request for funds for
the RNEP is particularly sensitive given the current review of
and efforts to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The
committee should send a clear signal that it in no way supports
or approves an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead. While we are
pleased to note that H.R 1815 moves in this direction, we will
strive for further changes in this direction during the House-
Senate conference on this bill.
Ike Skelton.
Silvestre Reyes.
John Spratt.
Loretta Sanchez.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Marty Meehan.
Neil Abercrombie.
Tim Ryan.
Kendrick B. Meek.
Adam Smith.
Robert A. Brady.
Vic Snyder.
Rick Larsen.
Robert E. Andrews.
Lane Evans.
Jim Langevin.
Steve Israel.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
Mark E. Udall.
Susan A. Davis.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Gene Taylor.
G.K. Butterfield.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES TERRY EVERETT, CURT WELDON, AND
MIKE D. ROGERS HASC MARKUP FISCAL YEAR 2006 NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES (A&AS) CONTRACTS
We commend Chairman Duncan Hunter's efforts to reform our
acquisition process. These reforms are sorely needed and we
look forward to working with him to implement these important
policy changes.
We would like to bring to the committee's attention an
issue that has been recently brought to our attention. In
Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005, Congress permitted extensions of performance
periods for Multiyear Task and Delivery Order Contracts.
However, this provision did not apply to advisory and
assistance services (A&AS) contracts.
Some have argued that allowing A&AS contracts to have the
same treatment as Multiyear Task and Delivery Order Contracts
would save the government valuable dollars by not forcing a re-
competition every 5 years. Additionally, they claim although
they have different classifications that they perform the same
type of work. However, others have told us that this extension
should not apply to A&AS contracts in order to ensure proper
oversight and to maintain the highest quality of performance
for the government.
Due to the fact that these concerns were not brought to our
attention until the authorization process was well underway, I
would encourage the members to carefully review these issues as
we go along with the hope of revisiting them in the future.
Terry Everett.
Curt Weldon.
Mike D. Rogers.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN M. SPRATT, JR.
During Committee consideration of the Defense Authorization
bill, I introduced an amendment to add $80 million dollars for
Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DOE)
nonproliferation programs. To offset this expense, I would have
cut premature, unneeded elements of the Groundbased Midcourse
Defense (GMD) program. This amendment lost 33-27 in committee
on a straight party line vote--a disappointing result on an
issue that should enjoy widespread bipartisan support.
Last year during the Presidential debates, President Bush
and Senator Kerry agreed on one thing--that the greatest threat
facing the United States today was nuclear weapons in the hands
of terrorists. Nonproliferation programs are our front line in
this effort. In January, 2001, the Baker-Cutler task force
recommended increasing non-proliferation funding under DOE to
$3 billion per year for the next 10 years. They claimed: ``The
most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States
today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or
weapons-usable materials in Russia could be stolen and sold to
terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American
troops abroad or citizens at home.''
This year (4 years later), DOE's and DoD's non-
proliferation budgets only contain $1.9 billion combined for
nuclear nonproliferation. This is simply not enough. My
amendment would have chipped away at this problem, bringing the
total for non-proliferation to nearly $2 billion this year. The
amendment was modest in sum and targeted at areas with real
unmet funding needs.
First, it provided $27.9 million for Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR, or Nunn-Lugar), the United States' flagship
program for securing, deactivating, and disposing of weapons of
mass destruction in the Former Soviet Union. Since 1991, the
CTR program has deactivated 6,564 warheads, destroyed 570
ICBMs, eliminated 543 SLBMs, eliminated 142 bombers, and dealt
with a host of other potentially threatening missile and
nuclear components. Unfortunately, the program has been
virtually flat-funded since its inception. This year, the
chairman's mark provides $416 million for CTR. This is $27.9
million below the money provided in 2001--pre September 11th.
The terrorist threat has certainly not diminished since
September 11th; it seems to me unthinkable to spend less money
on CTR. My amendment would have plussed up the CTR budget to
equal pre-September 11th levels with special focus on upgrading
security at Russian nuclear weapon storage sites. DoD has
indicated that to get all the nuclear security upgrades done at
Russian sites that need it will cost $150 million more per year
for the next five to seven years. My amendment was a down
payment on this total.
My amendment also would have provided $52.1 million for DOE
Nonproliferation programs. Because of the cut to the Mixed
Oxide Fuel program in the Chairman's mark, the nonproliferation
budget for DOE was decreased $122 million below the President's
budget request. My amendment would have added back almost half
of that total. This was a targeted investment in programs that
have a proven record of success, including:
$3 million for export controls to prevent
sensitive technology from falling into the wrong
hands--bringing the total to last year's appropriated
level;
$3 million for employing Russian nuclear
scientists to make sure they don't go work for
terrorists or rogue regimes, bring the total to last
year's appropriated level;
$14 million for the Russian Research Reactor
Fuel Return program, doubling the President's budget
request, to repatriate Russian-origin Highly Enriched
Uranium from vulnerable research reactors around the
globe and assist countries to convert their research
reactors from weapons grade uranium to Low Enriched
Uranium; and
$32.1 million in additional funding to
identify, secure, recover, and facilitate the disposal
of high risk, vulnerable nuclear material located in
countries of high proliferation concern.
My amendment was offset by decreasing the overall budget
for Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) by $80 million. This
still left an increase for GMD of $45 million over the budget
request.
The $80 million in savings would have been achieved simply
by limiting the number of silos at Fort Greely to 26. Combined
with the 4 silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base California, the
amendment allowed the unimpeded deployment of 30 ground-based
interceptors (GBIs). The MDA is planning to provide 34 silos
for the first 30 GBIs; the four extra silos are for ``swing
space.'' At $15.8 million per silo, this is an unnecessary
luxury. The amendment assumed $60 million can be saved by
eliminating these four extra silos.
The FY 2006 budget request also includes $20.7 million for
a ``downpayment'' on 10 additional silos (which would mean a
total of 44 silos at Greely and Vandenberg for the first 40
GBIs). The majority's mark cut 5 of the next 10 missiles, but
made no corresponding cut to the silos that would house them.
My amendment would have taken out this unneeded money.
Nonproliferation programs have a proven track record of
success, and there is no better way to stop terrorists from
getting their hands on nuclear weapons than securing and
disposing of nuclear material at its source. By contrast,
Groundbased Midcourse Defense has not been sufficiently tested,
and in two of the last three tests, the missile has not even
left the tube.
It is not difficult to see that the risk of a terrorist
bringing a nuclear weapon over the border is far greater than
the risk of a rogue nation hitting us with a missile. By
rejecting my amendment, the Majority has chosen to invest in
the remote risk rather than addressing the threat looking us
square in the eye.
John Spratt.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JIM GIBBONS
Noting for the record; as a senior member of the House
Armed Services Committee I would like to state my opposition to
the amendment offered by Congressman John McHugh of New York to
ban female soldiers from serving in certain support units. This
was an effort to keep women out of ``direct ground combat''. It
is unfortunate these amendments were voted on and approved by
the House Armed Services Committee as part of the 2006 Defense
Authorization Bill.
It has been from my personal military experience that
female soldiers perform remarkably well in the most difficult
of circumstances. It is my belief that as long as a female
passes the same standards as their male counterparts, there
should be no discrimination regarding job assignments in the
military.
Additionally, banning women from these critical support
roles comes at one of the worst possible times, as a result of
the ongoing developments in the Global War on Terror. With
recruitment levels low, Congress needs to look at ways to more
effectively utilize the existing human resources of the
military, as opposed to limiting them. In addition, senior Army
leadership has expressed deep concerns, saying that if this
provision is adopted than it is possible that over 21,000
positions could be limited Army leadership has also relayed
that the changes could cause a great deal of confusion within
the military's ranks.
Banning women from the current positions simply sends the
wrong message at the wrong time. Women have performed admirably
in these positions for several years now. I see no reason to
change this policy at this time. For these reasons, I did not
support either of the McHugh amendments.
Jim Gibbons.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF K. MICHAEL CONAWAY
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concern with Mr.
Taylor's amendment to expand TRICARE coverage for reserve
component personnel.
Let me first be clear in saying that my vote against
increasing health care coverage for reservists is in no way a
reflection of my feelings toward our reserve personnel. I have
the utmost respect and admiration for these individuals and the
sacrifices they and their families have made for our nation,
especially during the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The men and
women of the reserve, and their families, deserve our nation's
heart felt gratitude for their dedication to the cause of
advancing freedom and keeping our nation safe and secure.
My concern with this proposal stems from a matter of
policy. Proponents of this amendment, while they were well
intentioned, did not present the relevant facts and analysis
necessary to make an informed decision of this magnitude. My
first and foremost concern is that the cost for this proposal
is unknown. All that was offered to assess the cost was a dated
CBO estimate that provides a guess at the expenses for the
first year of coverage. What we do not know; however, is how
accurate this estimate is, how much these costs will add up to
in the long run, or how to pay for this mandatory entitlement.
In offering this amendment, Mr. Taylor proposed to pay for
the first $180,000,000 of first year coverage out of the $1.9
billion that was originally allocated for the Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) process. In passing this provision, we
reduced the resources available to communities to aid in the
BRAC transition process. I believe it is shortsighted to divert
this money that will desperately be needed by communities to
deal with the closure of military installations and the loss of
jobs and economic impact the closures will have.
Additionally, I believe that we need to consider the effect
this provision will have on the parity between the reserve and
active duty components. While we certainly want to compensate
our reservists for their commitment and service, we need to be
careful not to eliminate the benefit differences between the
components. As citizen-soldiers, reservists have options not
available to active duty personnel.
A related concern centers on whether employers may opt to
drop health care coverage for employees in the reserve if they
know that coverage will be extended by the federal government.
There is a significant financial incentive to drop coverage
when premiums for TRICARE family coverage are compared to
employer premiums. There are no safeguards built in to prevent
employer abuse of the system.
I understand the desire to provide additional benefits for
our reservists that are being deployed multiple times or for
extended periods during this current conflict. The intent is
admirable and I, too, support efforts to protect these
individuals from difficulties caused by their service. However,
I do not believe that it is prudent to rush to create a new
entitlement with no forethought on what the ultimate impact
will be on the budget and the structure of our armed forces.
K. Michael Conaway.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SUSAN A. DAVIS
I am concerned and disappointed by Section 1014 of the
Committee's bill, which circumvents normal procedures by
directing the Navy to transfer a decommissioned battleship, the
U.S.S. IOWA (BB-61), to the Port of Stockton, California.
In most circumstances, Section 7306 of title 10 provides
for the transfer of vessels which have been stricken from the
Naval Vessel Register. Section 7306 provides the Secretary of
the Navy with a significant degree of flexibility to determine
optimum suitability for each such transfer and to ensure the
transferred vessel's satisfactory use and maintainability. This
is standard practice, and it is the procedure the Navy strongly
prefers.
In a departure from normal practice, Section 1014 of the
committee bill forces the Secretary of the Navy to strike the
U.S.S. IOWA from the Naval Vessel Register and transfer it to
the Port of Stockton. In effect, Section 1014 strips all
control from the Navy with regard to this process and forces
the Secretary to accept the Port of Stockton's donation
application in lieu of any other application that might be
submitted by any other locality.
I support any effort to provide a suitable home to
decommissioned naval vessels, but I cannot support this
circumvention of laws that were designed to ensure the quality
and integrity of this process. Section 1014 ignores the proper
level of deference we should accord the Secretary of the Navy
on these matters, and I disagree with this Section strongly for
this reason.
Susan A. Davis.
DISSENTING VIEWS OF CYNTHIA MCKINNEY
War
I dissent from war and from preparations for war. I stand
with Jeannette Rankin, a former Member of this body in saying
that I cannot vote for war.
``When will we ever learn?'' When I was young, that refrain
echoed through a popular song of the time. If this defense
authorization bill is any evidence, the answer at best would
have to be: ``Not yet.''
The Administration exploiting for the full propaganda value
its own tragic failure of intelligence on 9/11, promptly
adopted a National Security Strategy justifying to itself
(though not convincingly to the rest of the nation and world)
the pre-emptive use of force and other measures undermining the
framework of Constitutional protections fought for by previous
generations. Then without completing its stated mission of
bringing al-Qaeda to justice for the crimes it has accused them
of, it launched an illegal and pre-emptive war against Iraq,
based on cooked intelligence. The plan followed a prescription
originally drafted by Richard Perle (``A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm'') to advance Israeli foreign
policy, which was rejected at the time by the Netanyahu
administration (according to James Bramford's A Pretext to
War).
Now the British press has published the minutes of a
meeting between Prime Minister Blair and British intelligence
discussing the Bush administration's intention to cook
intelligence for the purpose of justifying its war against and
occupation of Iraq.
Meanwhile any steps toward meaningful security for our
nation are stymied by a Congress and administration which seem
intent on ignoring the looming and grave consequences of peak
oil and global warming.
The Bush administration's NSS fails to provide the basis
for true and meaningful security.
Security does not grow from the barrel of a gun. Nor can it
be fostered in a culture of fear. It is not fostered by a neo-
colonial occupation of people who live around the resources we
might want to consume.
True security starts with food security. It begins with
energy security. It grows from self-sufficiency, personal and
global responsibility. True security respects both personal and
national sovereignty. It flourishes in the context of
cooperative relationships with the nations of the global
community, and a just relationship with the people whose labor
produces the wealth which our nation has enjoyed.
But most of the basis for a meaningful and affordable
national security strategy is being sacrificed by a Bush
Administration budget that rips to shreds the social safety
net, exacerbates stratification and division among the American
people, and is based on a war machine paid for with historic
budget deficits, a growing national debt, and all-time high
trade deficits. The President has rewarded the wealthy of
America to the detriment of our most vulnerable populations.
While this $441.6 billion bill may have enjoyed broad
support in Committee, the policy it implements faces eroding
support among the citizens of this nation and of the world.
Current news reports find that 61% of survey respondents in
this country disapprove of Bush's approach to the war on Iraq
and that only 26% are confident that Bush policies in Iraq will
succeed; whatever success is supposed to look like.
The President's decision to go to war and his policy of
occupation of Iraq are wrong. Threats and intimidation of other
countries in the Middle East are not the way to find peace and
will only result in more war. The United States must pursue a
policy of peace and respect for human rights. The budget and
this authorization bill should reflect that priority, but sadly
it does not.
The Pentagon has been wracked with accusations of
mismanagement. Still reeling from its admission of the loss of
$2.3 trillion, it continues its abysmal management practices.
Sadly, Pentagon leadership refuse to provide information for
proper Congressional oversight of their spending practices.
For example, I offered an amendment, which lost on a 26-31
largely Party line vote that would have merely required the
inclusion in an existing annual report a list of the vendors
and contract awards associated with the $20 billion DoD program
to upgrade the financial accounting computer systems which
serve Defense Department operations. For years, as the DoD
Inspector General and the GAO have documented trillions of
dollars in unsupported transactions, the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) Tina W. Jonas (and her predecessors) have
told us that they are ``working to make the Department
computers talk to one another''. But this issue has persisted.
It was in the FY-99 audit that the IG found that $2.1 trillion
of transactions were ``not fully documented''. Now we are on
the verge of authorizing the FY-06 budget, we still don't have
auditable books at DoD and there exists scant information on
which we as Members of Congress might use to exercise our
oversight responsibilities.
The Committee rejected an amendment I offered to address
the rash of ``recruitment improprieties'' as the Army
euphemistically calls the coercive and fraudulent tactics
employed by recruiters in their efforts to meet their quotas.
Recruiters have resorted to hosting banquets for students in my
District, and taking over entire classes that would be better
devoted to the core curriculum of our public school system.
Recent media reports have shown video of recruiters coaching a
recruiting prospect on how to forge a diploma and how to cheat
a urine test to conceal recent marijuana use. Other reports
have suggested that recruiters have concealed disqualifying
conditions including asthma and mental illness. And my office
gets calls about the activities authorized by the Leave No
Child Un-Recruited provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Recruiting is down. The New York Times reports that
recruiters feel pressure from their chain of command to
``bend'' the rules in order to meet their quotas. The
Recruiting Command has announced a new fifteen month enlistment
in an effort to fill the ranks. Of course the fine print will
commit an enlistee to eight years plus however long may be
necessary to comply with the back-door draft already at work in
the form of stop-loss orders.
The American Friends Service Committee tells us that over
400 recruiters have been relieved of recruiting duty for
misconduct in the past ten years. In just the Army and the
Navy, over 1,290 were admonished, short of re-assignment. This
week, Major General Rochelle's Recruiting Command holds its
Stand Down training for every Army recruiter. His public
affairs people keep referring to the ``bad apples'' in their
mix. Yet the numbers suggest something far more systemic is at
play.
Some fear that our recent debate related to the role of
women in combat is merely a prelude to reinstituting
conscription. No one believes that a draft will be
politicallyfeasible if women face the draft and potential combat
assignments. For the most part, I can support my colleagues' statements
on the role of women in the military. But I would go further and ask:
why are we so concerned about keeping our daughters from harm's way,
but not our sons as well? Why do we pursue foreign policies that result
in soldiers heading one way while body bags come back the other?
In addition, the world was shocked with the Pentagon's
treatment of detainees at its detention centers, including Abu
Ghraib. That the leadership of the Pentagon and this country
have knowingly engaged in torture and the facilitation of
torture ultimately becomes a question of the respect that this
Administration has for international law. Its behavior in Iraq,
in some cases, has clearly been outside the bounds of law.
Our nation has squandered its position of moral authority
in the global community. My office received a postcard from a
constituent, with a photo of Specialist Charles Graner, Private
Lyndie England--both giving a thumbs up, as they stand smiling
before a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners stacked on top of one
another. The caption reads: ``Remember Abu Ghraib? How the Arab
world views US. Courtesy George W. Bush''.
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. And in
fact, there are some provisions of this mark-up which I can
support. I wish we had had the commitment to those who serve in
uniform to extend the SGLI Death Benefit past the terms of the
Supplemental to include it in the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY-06, though.
Even so, 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 words of my dissent to the FY-1999 Defense
Authorization (my first year on this Committee) still ring true
today and require very little change in the post 9/11
environment. Back then, I wrote:
The committee's recommendations still reflect a Cold
War era mentality by finding ways to finance a too-
large military force structure; an overly aggressive,
and in many cases misguided, weapons modernization
program; an overly programmed requirements to maintain
short-term readiness, rather than planning successfully
to pay for our involvement in peacekeeping and
humanitarian ventures.
In the early days of World War II, bi-partisan concerns for
the threat that war profiteers posed to the national security
gave rise to passage of the Truman Commission which was
empowered to return excess profits to the public coffers. Our
nation would be well served to use such a system again.
But it will take more than the careful oversight of the
authorized programs let as no-bid contracts to DynCorp,
Halliburton and the Carlyle Group to seriously address the
bloat in spending at the Pentagon. We must commit ourselves to
the active pursuit of transformation by retiring existing
systems and halting investments in new Cold War weapons systems
that still seem to dominate Defense spending.
This would include the Missile Defense Agency. Current
plans for research and development of new space technologies
are leading the world into a new costly and dangerous arms
race. U.S. leadership in developing anti-satellite weapons, the
nuclear rocket, new generations of war fighting satellites,
military space plane, and other systems are creating pressure
on the rest of the world to follow along. This will inevitably
lead to a destabilizing arms race that in the end will make
life on Earth more unstable for everyone involved. The U.S.
refusal to seriously discuss the Prevention of an arms space in
outer space (PAROS) at the U.N. is blocking the development of
new international treaties that would protect space from the
bad seed of war.
While I am grateful that this mark has zero'd out the High
Altitude Airship program (about which my office has documents
suggesting gross mismanagement), the MDA still is budgeted for
nearly $3.5 billion for the Groundbased Midcourse Defense
program. Our Committee failed to adopt an amendment to require
an independent testing of this technology prior to deployment.
The last three launch tests were complete failures.
Although the Navy recommended retiring one of its twelve
aircraft carriers, the Committee reversed them and has
instructed that this unneeded carrier remain in service.
Saying we need a military is not the same as saying we need
this military. The flag grade officers of the Center for
Defense Information once estimated--perhaps a decade ago--that
a military budget 3% of the then current budget would be
sufficient to defend the territorial borders of the United
States. Approving endlessly larger budgets is not the same as
exercising Congressional or civilian control and oversight.
The reasons for my opposition to this bill are too numerous
to list here in the short time allowed for the filing of this
dissent. They would include cuts in environmental clean-up at
the nuclear weapons complex, the unattended toxic dumps
scattered on bases across the nation, the incineration of
chemical warfare agents upwind of the communities I represent,
a policy of militarization that seems to have displaced
diplomacy in our dealings with the global community, the risks
of nuclear Armageddon and on and on.
I want to end this statement, though with the words of a
now repentant former Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara.
He once acknowledged that had the United States been conquered
in its War against the people of Vietnam, instead of being
merely defeated, that he and President Johnson would likely
have been prosecuted as war criminals for the mass slaughter of
civilians they unleashed. In this month's issue of Foreign
Policy, Mr. McNamara wrote in an article entitled: ``Apocalypse
Soon'':
It is time-well past time, in my view-for the United
States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear
weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At the risk of
appearing simplistic and provocative, I would
characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as
immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and
dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or
inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far
from reducing these risks, the Bush administration has
signaled that it is committed to keeping the U.S.
nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power-a
commitment that is simultaneously eroding the
international norms that have limited the spread of
nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 years.
Much of the current U.S. nuclear policy has been in
place since before I was secretary of defense, and it
has only grown more dangerous and diplomatically
destructive in the intervening years.
It is time--well past time, in my view--for the United
States to get serious about its efforts to reduce the threat
that Weapons of Mass Destruction pose to global peace and
security. But to do so, we must recognize where those weapons
are and what dynamics create the instability which can turn the
dooms-day clock back on toward its short countdown to nuclear
conflageration. In spite of the high costs of doing so, we have
yet to turn up any of the WMD's we were told were held in Iraq.
Fissile materials are scattered across the former Soviet Union
and the Nunn-Lugar program, if fully funded could go far to
help us contain that threat. But the nuclear warheads on hair-
trigger alert are overwhelmingly deployed by our nation. And it
is our leadership that will be necessary to address the crisis
of proliferation we face. It is up to us to lead the way to the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
And until this Congress and our nation has demonstrated
that we are ready to exhibit that sort of 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.