[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.

                                  
