[House Report 110-146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





110th Congress                                                      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                       110-146
__________________________________________________________________________



        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 1585

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                  [Including committee cost estimate]

                                     


                                     

  May 11, 2007.--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 2008






110th Congress                                                      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                       110-146
__________________________________________________________________________




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 1585

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                  [Including committee cost estimate]

                                     


                                     

  May 11, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed



                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                         IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina          DUNCAN HUNTER, California
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas              JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii             TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas               HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, 
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas                     California
ADAM SMITH, Washington               MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        KEN CALVERT, California
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           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
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MARK UDALL, Colorado                 ROB BISHOP, Utah
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma                  MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana              JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas                  CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania      PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire     TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York         K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania             GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
                    Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     1
Purpose..........................................................     1
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill.............................     2
Summary Table of Authorizations..................................     2
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................    14
Hearings.........................................................    17

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.................    18

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    18
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    18
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    21
      Overview...................................................    21
      Items of Special Interest..................................    25
        Airborne reconnaissance--low.............................    25
        Armed reconnaissance helicopter..........................    25
        UH-60A to UH-60L helicopter upgrade......................    25
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    26
      Overview...................................................    26
      Items of Special Interest..................................    29
        Patriot PAC-3 missiles...................................    29
        Patriot modifications and pure fleet upgrade.............    29
        Tube-launched optically-tracked wire-guided missile......    29
    Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................    29
      Overview...................................................    29
      Items of Special Interest..................................    34
        Abrams tank total integrated engine revitalization 
          program strategy.......................................    34
        Abrams tank multiyear procurement authority..............    34
        Army National Guard Stryker vehicles.....................    34
        Bradley fighting vehicle multiyear procurement authority.    35
        Future Combat Systems procurement lines structure........    35
        Stryker vehicle program adjustment.......................    36
        Stryker mobile gun system deployment plan................    36
    Ammunition Procurement, Army.................................    36
      Overview...................................................    36
      Item of Special Interest...................................    41
        Excalibur extended range artillery projectile............    41
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    41
      Overview...................................................    41
      Items of Special Interest..................................    53
        Automatic identification technology for Army depots......    53
        Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below...............    53
        Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control.............    53
        Future Unmanned Aerial Vehicle threat to Army Forces.....    53
        Individual soldier survivability equipment budget line 
          item...................................................    54
        Joint Network Node.......................................    54
        Maneuver Control System..................................    54
        Mine protection vehicle family...........................    55
        Nonsystems training devices..............................    55
        Profiler system..........................................    56
        Radio, improved high-frequency family....................    56
        Shadow unmanned aerial systems...........................    56
        Simulated expandable combat training capability for Army 
          National Guard.........................................    56
        Tactical Operations Centers..............................    57
        Tactical wheeled vehicle armor classification levels.....    57
    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................    58
      Overview...................................................    58
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    60
      Overview...................................................    60
      Item of Special Interest...................................    66
        P-3C modernization.......................................    66
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    66
      Overview...................................................    66
      Item of Special Interest...................................    70
        Conventional Trident modification........................    70
    Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps..................    70
      Overview...................................................    70
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    74
      Overview...................................................    74
      Items of Special Interest..................................    78
        Littoral Combat Ship.....................................    78
        Premature retirement of Navy vessels.....................    79
        San Antonio Class (LPD)..................................    79
        Virginia Class Submarine Advance Procurement.............    79
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    80
      Overview...................................................    80
      Items of Special Interest..................................    91
        CVN Propeller Replacement Program........................    91
        DDG 51 modernization program.............................    91
        Envelop protective covers for naval applications.........    91
        LSD 41 class 60 ton crane upgrades.......................    91
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    92
      Overview...................................................    92
      Items of Special Interest..................................    98
        Combat Operations Centers................................    98
        Radio systems............................................    98
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................    98
      Overview...................................................    98
      Items of Special Interest..................................   106
        AC-130 large aircraft infrared countrmeasures............   106
        AN/ALQ-213 processor.....................................   106
        B-1 bomber modernization.................................   106
        B-2 bomber modernization.................................   107
        B-52.....................................................   107
        C-5 small arms protective armor..........................   108
        F-16 block 42 engine upgrades............................   108
        Joint cargo aircraft.....................................   108
        KC-135R global air traffic management system.............   109
        Senior scout shelter.....................................   109
        Strategic airlift aircraft...............................   110
        Study on procuring F-35 aircraft for Air National Guard 
          units..................................................   111
    Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................   112
      Overview...................................................   112
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   115
      Overview...................................................   115
      Items of Special Interest..................................   119
        Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Remote Visual 
          Assessment.............................................   119
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   119
      Overview...................................................   119
      Items of Special Interest..................................   125
        General information technology...........................   125
        Hawaii Air National Guard Eagle Vision...................   125
        Lightweight inflatable decontamination system............   126
        Rescue streamer distress signal kit......................   126
        Terminal radar approach control switchgear and quick 
          connect panel..........................................   126
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   127
      Overview...................................................   127
      Items of Special Interest..................................   133
        MH-47G Reconstruction....................................   133
        Night Vision Devices.....................................   133
        Special Operations Craft-Riverine........................   133
        Special Operations Forces Personnel Equipment Advanced 
          Requirements...........................................   133
        Joint Intelligence Operations Centers....................   134
        Persistence intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance.   134
    Procurement, National Guard and Reserve......................   135
      Overview...................................................   135
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   138
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   138
      Section 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations...........   138
      Section 105--National Guard and Reserve Equipment..........   138
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................   138
      Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for M1A2 
        Abrams System Enhancement Package Vehicles...............   138
      Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for M2A3 
        Bradley Fighting Vehicles, M3A3 Cavalry Fighting 
        Vehicles, and M2A3 Bradley Fire Support Team Vehicles....   138
      Section 113--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Conversion 
        of CH-47D Helicopters to CH-47F Configuration............   138
      Section 114--Multiyear Procurement Authority for CH-47F 
        Helicopters..............................................   138
      Section 115--Limitation on Use of Funds for Joint Network 
        Node Program Pending Certification to Congress...........   138
      Section 116--Prohibition on Closure of Army Tactical 
        Missile System Production Line Pending Report............   139
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................   139
      Section 121--Authority to Transfer Funds for Submarine 
        Engineered Refueling Overhauls and Conversions and for 
        Aircraft Carrier Refueling Complex Overhauls.............   139
      Section 122--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Virginia-
        Class Submarine Program..................................   140
      Section 123--Limitation on Final Assembly of VH-71 
        Presidential Transport Helicopters.......................   140
      Section 124--Limitation on Operational Deployment of 
        Weapons System that Uses Trident Missiles Converted to 
        Carry Conventional Payloads..............................   140
      Section 125--Program to Provide Contractors with Capital 
        Expenditure Incentives...................................   140
      Section 126--Limitation on Use of Shipbuilding and 
        Conversion, Navy, Funds for Employment of Nonimmigrant 
        Workers..................................................   141
      Section 127--Limitation on Concurrent Design and 
        Construction on First Ship of a Shipbuilding Program.....   141
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................   141
      Section 131--Limitation on Retiring C-5 Aircraft...........   141
      Section 132--Limitation on Joint Cargo Aircraft............   142
      Section 133--Clarification of Limitation on Retirement of 
        the U-2 Aircraft.........................................   142
      Section 134--Repeal of Requirement to Maintain Retired C-
        130E Tactical Airlift Aircraft...........................   142

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION..............   142
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   142
    Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation...............   145
      Overview...................................................   145
      Items of Special Interest..................................   160
        Active Protection Systems................................   160
        Advanced lightweight armor materials.....................   160
        Aerial Common Sensor.....................................   160
        Army missile defense systems integration.................   161
        Cable warning and obstacle avoidance system..............   161
        Common Remote Operating Weapon Station...................   161
        Digital array radar......................................   162
        Enhanced flame retardant clothing systems................   162
        Epidemiological studies for Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
          Operation Enduring Freedom.............................   162
        Future Combat Systems Program............................   163
          Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles...........   165
          Future Combat Systems system of systems engineering and 
            program management...................................   165
          Future Combat Systems unmanned aerial systems..........   165
          Future Combat Systems unmanned ground vehicles.........   166
        Global Combat Support System.............................   166
        Leishmaniasis skin test antigen..........................   166
        Lightweight small arms technologies......................   167
        Longitudinal research on troop health outcomes...........   167
        Modeling fatigue and cognitive effectiveness.............   168
        Nanocrystalline laminates and protective coatings for 
          rotorcraft windscreens.................................   168
        Network enabled combat identification....................   168
        Oxygen diffusion dressings...............................   168
        Patriot/Medium Extended Air Defense System combined 
          aggregate program......................................   169
        Polymer matrix composites for rotorcraft drive systems...   169
        RAND Arroyo Center.......................................   169
        Sensor visualization and data fusion program.............   170
        Smart energetic architecture for missile systems.........   170
        Tactical metal fabrication system........................   170
        Tactical wheeled vehicle improvement program.............   170
        Tactical wheeled vehicle long term armoring strategy.....   171
        Training-based collaborative research in consequence 
          management.............................................   171
        Unmanned rotorcraft risk reduction demonstrations........   172
        Warfighter Information Network--Tactical.................   172
    Navy Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation...............   172
      Overview...................................................   172
      Items of Special Interest..................................   185
        76mm super rapid medium caliber gun system...............   185
        Advanced materials for acoustic window applications......   185
        Advanced non-lethal hail and warning laser system........   185
        Affordable Weapon System.................................   185
        Age exploration model....................................   186
        Blossom Point Satellite facility.........................   186
        Countermine light imaging detection and ranging undersea 
          autonomous vehicle based system........................   186
        Critical composite technologies for special operations 
          forces medium range endurance craft....................   187
        DDG 1000 permanent magnet motor system...................   187
        Deep extended echo ranging...............................   187
        Diagnostic/prognostic pump system........................   187
        DP-2 vectored thrust aircraft............................   188
        Fiber optic technology...................................   188
        Free electron laser development for naval applications...   188
        High temperature superconducting motor...................   188
        Hybrid-electric drive systems............................   189
        Improved corrosion protection for electromagnetic 
          aircraft launch system.................................   189
        Joint Stand-Off Weapon-Extended Range....................   189
        Marine Corps assault vehicles............................   189
        Maritime identification surveillance technology..........   190
        MK-48 torpedo technology development.....................   190
        Propulsor manufacturing technology development...........   190
        Reliable Replacement Warhead.............................   191
        Rotorcraft external airbag system........................   191
        Seafighter...............................................   191
        Software reconfigurable payloads.........................   192
        Tactical e-field buoy development program................   192
        Virtual medical education................................   192
    Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation........   193
      Overview...................................................   193
      Items of Special Interest..................................   207
        Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft Demonstration..........   207
        Advanced Extremely High Frequency 4......................   207
        Airborne Signals Intelligence Enterprise.................   207
        Alternate infrared satellite system......................   207
        B-2 Small Diameter Bomb integration......................   208
        Biostatic protective clothing............................   208
        C-130 airlift squadrons..................................   208
        California Space Infrastructure Project..................   209
        Combat search and recovery vehicle.......................   209
        Communications support environment.......................   209
        Electro-magnetic interference grid fabrication technology   210
        EMP immune computer hardware.............................   210
        Enhanced smart triple ejector rack.......................   210
        Global Positioning System IIF, satellites 13-15..........   211
        Global Positioning System III............................   211
        Global Positioning System modernized user equipment......   212
        High Accuracy Network Determination System...............   212
        High Integrity Global Positioning Systems................   212
        Inductive thermography inspection equipment..............   213
        Intelligent Free Space Optical Satellite Communications 
          Node...................................................   213
        Joint Strike Fighter.....................................   213
        KC-X.....................................................   214
        Lightweight, compact transmitter for imaging laser radar.   214
        Low emission hybrid electric engine propulsion...........   215
        Metals Affordability Initiative..........................   215
        National Security Space Integration......................   215
        Operationally Responsive Space...........................   215
        Optical maximum entropy verification.....................   216
        Radiation Hardened Electronics...........................   216
        Rivet Joint Network Interface Growth.....................   216
        Satellite Active Imaging National Testbed program........   217
        Self-Aware--Space Situation Awareness....................   217
        Space Based Infrared System, geosynchronous satellite 4..   217
        Space Based Infrared System-High Mission Control System 
          backup.................................................   217
        Space Control Test Capabilities..........................   217
        Space entrepreneurship...................................   217
        Space fence..............................................   218
        Space Situational Awareness..............................   218
        Strategic airlift transformation and integration modeling   218
        Wideband Global System laser communication integration...   218
    Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.....   218
      Overview...................................................   218
      Items of Special Interest..................................   233
        Advanced energy storage technology initiative............   233
        Advanced Mission Planning Tools..........................   233
        Airborne network gateway.................................   234
        Ballistic missile defense................................   234
          Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense........................   235
          Arrow Weapons System...................................   236
          Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle 
            Management and Communication.........................   236
          Ballistic Missile Defense joint warfighter support.....   236
          Ballistic Missile Defense sensors......................   236
          Ballistic Missile Defense system core..................   236
          Ballistic Missile Defense system space programs........   237
          Ballistic Missile Defense technology...................   237
          Boost defense segment..................................   237
          European missile defense site..........................   238
          Kinetic Energy Interceptor.............................   240
          Missile defense cooperation with Japan and Australia...   240
          Multiple Kill Vehicle..................................   240
          Space Tracking and Surveillance System.................   241
          Special programs--Missile Defense Agency...............   241
          Terminal High Altitude Area Defense....................   241
          Warfighter Involvement Program.........................   242
        Basic research for combating weapons of mass destruction.   242
        Budget exhibits and program elements.....................   243
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program..................   244
          Advanced technology development........................   244
          Applied research.......................................   244
          Basic research.........................................   244
        Contextual Arabic analysis program.......................   245
        Defense Technical Information Center.....................   245
        Enterprise License Agreement.............................   246
        Foliage penetration reconnaissance and surveillance......   246
        Human systems integration................................   246
        Information assurance activities.........................   247
        Innovation for national security.........................   248
        In-transit visibility system.............................   248
        Irregular Warfare Support................................   249
        Joint Capability Technology Demonstration................   249
        Joint command and control................................   250
        Joint Experimentation program............................   250
        Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office.............   251
        License plate recognition initiative.....................   251
        Medical Free Electron Laser..............................   251
        National Defense Education Program.......................   252
        Office of Force Transformation...........................   253
        Posture review of critical infrastructures...............   253
        Rapid identification of commercial information 
          technologies for military requirements.................   253
        Secure free space optical communications.................   254
        Small craft common operational picture...................   254
        Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.   254
        Synthetic Aperture Radar Coherent Change Detection.......   255
        Vacuum electronics.......................................   255
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   255
      Overview...................................................   255
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   257
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   257
      Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............   257
      Section 202--Amount for Defense Science and Technology.....   257
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   257
      Section 211--Operational Test and Evaluation of Future 
        Combat Systems Network...................................   257
      Section 212--Limitation on Systems Development and 
        Demonstration of Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program....   257
      Section 213--Requirement to Obligate Funds for Development 
        and Procurement of a Competitive Propulsion System for 
        the Joint Strike Fighter.................................   258
      Section 214--Limitation on Use of Funds for Manufacturing 
        Science and Technology Program...........................   258
    Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs.........................   259
      Section 221--Oversight of Missile Defense Agency Programs 
        by Director of Operational Test & Evaluation.............   259
      Section 222--Fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense 
        Capabilities and Future Roles and Missions of Missile 
        Defense Agency...........................................   259
      Section 223--Limitation on Use of Funds for Replacing 
        Warhead on SM-3 Block IIA Missile........................   260
      Section 224--Two-year Extension of Comptroller General 
        Assessments of Ballistic Missile Programs................   260
      Section 225--Independent Study on Deploying Missile Defense 
        System in Europe.........................................   260
      Section 226--Sense of Congress Concerning Full Support for 
        Development and Fielding of a Layered Ballistic Missile 
        Defense..................................................   260
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   261
      Section 231--Responsibility for Human Systems Integration 
        Activities...............................................   261
      Section 232--Expansion of Authority for Encouragement of 
        Technology Transfer......................................   261
      Section 233--Army Venture Capital Fund Demonstration.......   261
      Section 234--Independent Tests for Combat Helmet Pad 
        Suspension Systems.......................................   262
      Section 235--Report on Implementation of Manufacturing 
        Technology Program.......................................   262
      Section 236--Assessment of Sufficient Test and Evaluation 
        Personnel................................................   262
      Section 237--Repeal of Requirement for Separate Reports on 
        Technology Area Review and Assessment Summaries..........   263

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................   263
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   263
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   295
    Budget Request Adjustments...................................   295
      Air Force Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance............   296
      Army Prepositioned Stocks..................................   296
      B-52.......................................................   296
      Cheyenne Mountain..........................................   297
      Corpus Christi Military Seaport Upgrades...................   297
      Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program Office Support......   297
      Maintain 36th Rescue Flight, Fairchild AFB.................   298
      Navy Aircraft Depot Maintenance............................   298
      Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative..........   298
      Reserve Forces Ship Maintenance............................   298
    Environmental Issues.........................................   299
      Marine Mammal Protection Act...............................   299
      Study on Military Readiness and Exemptions to Environmental 
        Laws.....................................................   299
    Other Matters................................................   300
      Depot Maintenance Workload Carryover.......................   300
      Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization........   300
      Ground Combat Skills Training..............................   301
      Impact of Contingency Operations on the Army Working 
        Capital Fund.............................................   302
      Lifecycle Sustainment Strategic Plans......................   303
      Military Tire Privatization................................   303
      Prime Vendor Contracts.....................................   303
      Program for Tracking High-Altitude Aviation Training.......   304
      Senior Scientific Technical Manager Positions at Naval 
        Warfare Centers..........................................   304
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   304
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   304
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   304
      Section 302--Working Capital Funds.........................   305
      Section 303--Other Department of Defense Programs..........   305
    Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions.........................   305
      Section 311--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection 
        Agency for Certain Costs in Connection with Moses Lake 
        Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington.........   305
      Section 312--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection 
        Agency for Certain Costs in Connection with Arctic 
        Surplus Superfund Site, Fairbanks, Alaska................   305
      Section 313--Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of 
        Stipulated Penalties in Connection with Jackson Park 
        Housing Complex, Washington..............................   305
    Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues.......................   305
      Section 321--Increase in Threshold Amount for Contracts for 
        Procurement of Capital Assets in Advance of Availability 
        of Working-Capital Funds for the Procurement.............   305
      Section 322--Authorization of Availability of Working-
        Capital Funds for Certain Product Improvements...........   306
      Section 323--Authorization of Use of Working-Capital Funds 
        for Acquisition of Certain Items.........................   306
      Section 324--Modification to Public-Private Competition 
        Requirements Before Conversion to Contractor Performance.   307
      Section 325--Public-Private Competition at End of Period 
        Specified in Performance Agreement Not Required..........   307
      Section 326--Guidelines on Insourcing New and Contracted 
        Out Functions............................................   307
      Section 327--Additional Requirements for Annual Report on 
        Public-Private Competitions..............................   307
      Section 328--Restriction on Office of Management and Budget 
        Influence Over Department of Defense Public-Private 
        Competitions.............................................   308
      Section 329--Public-Private Competition Bid Protests by 
        Federal Employees........................................   308
      Section 330--Public-Private Competition Required Before 
        Conversion to Contractor Performance.....................   308
      Section 331--Reauthorization and Modification of Multi-
        Trades Demonstration Project.............................   309
    Subtitle D--Extension of Program Authorities.................   309
      Section 341--Extension of Arsenal Support Program 
        Initiative...............................................   309
      Section 342--Extension of Period for Reimbursement for 
        Helmet Pads Purchased by Members of the Armed Forces 
        Deployed in Contingency Operations.......................   309
    Subtitle E--Reports..........................................   309
      Section 351--Inclusion of National Guard Readiness for 
        Civil Support Missions in Quarterly Personnel and Unit 
        Readiness Report.........................................   309
      Section 352--Plan to Improve Readiness of Active and 
        Reserve Component Ground Forces..........................   310
      Section 353--Plan for Optimal Use of Strategic Ports by 
        Commander of Surface Distribution and Deployment Command.   311
      Section 354--Independent Assessment of Civil Reserve Air 
        Fleet Viability..........................................   311
      Section 355--Annual Report on Prepositioned Materiel and 
        Equipment................................................   312
      Section 356--Conditions on Relocation of North American 
        Aerospace Defense Command Center and Related Functions 
        From Cheyenne Mountain to Peterson Air Force Base........   312
      Section 357--Report on Public-Private Partnerships.........   313

    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   313
      Section 361--Authority for Department of Defense to Provide 
        Support for Certain Sporting Events......................   313
      Section 362--Reasonable Restrictions on Payment of Full 
        Replacement Value for Lost or Damaged Personal Property 
        Transported at Government Expense........................   313
      Section 363--Priority Transportation on Department of 
        Defense Aircraft of Retired Members Residing in 
        Commonwealths and Possessions of the United States for 
        Certain Health Care Services.............................   314
      Section 364--Recovery of Missing Military Property.........   314
      Section 365--Retention of Army Combat Uniforms by Members 
        of Army Deployed in Support of Contingency Operations....   315
      Section 366--Issue of Serviceable Material Other Than to 
        Armed Forces.............................................   315
      Section 367--Prohibition on Deactivation of 36th Rescue 
        Flight...................................................   315
      Section 368--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds for Initial 
        Flight Screening at Pueblo Memorial Airport..............   315
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   316
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   316
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   316
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   316
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   316
      Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 
        Minimum Levels...........................................   317
      Section 403--Additional Authority for Increases of Army and 
        Marine Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 
        2009 and 2010............................................   317
      Section 404--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Army 
        Officers on Active Duty in the Grade of Major............   318
      Section 405--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Navy 
        Officers on Active Duty in the Grades of Lieutenant 
        Commander, Commander, and Captain........................   318
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   318
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   318
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 
        Support of the Reserves..................................   318
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual 
        Status)..................................................   319
      Section 414--Fiscal Year 2008 Limitation on Number of Non-
        Dual Status Technicians..................................   319
      Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 
        to be on Active Duty for Operational Support.............   319
      Section 416--Future Authorizations and Accounting for 
        Certain Reserve Component Personnel Authorized to be on 
        Active Duty or Full-Time National Guard Duty to Provide 
        Operational Support......................................   320
      Section 417--Revision of Variances Authorized for Selected 
        Reserve End Strengths....................................   320
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   320
      Section 421--Military Personnel............................   320
      Section 422--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................   321
      Section 423--Offsetting Transfers from National Defense 
        Stockpile Transaction Fund...............................   321

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   321
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   321
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   322
      Access to Member Social Security Numbers...................   322
      Cost and Impact of Allowing Service Members to Utilize 
        Their GI Bill to Repay Student Loans.....................   322
      Deployment Impact on Military Minor Dependents.............   323
      Display of the National League of Families POW/MIA Flag at 
        Department of Defense Facilities.........................   323
      Increased Funding for Prisoner of War and Missing Personnel 
        Operations...............................................   324
      Increased Military Operations on Guam......................   324
      National Guard Educational Initiatives.....................   325
      Pay and Retirement Service Credit for Students at the 
        Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences and 
        Other Education Programs.................................   325
      Review of Privileged or Protected Communications Made by 
        Victims..................................................   326
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   326
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   326
      Section 501--Assignment of Officers to Designated Positions 
        of Importance and Responsibility.........................   326
      Section 502--Increase in Years of Commissioned Service 
        Threshold for Discharge of Probationary Officers and for 
        Use of Force Shaping Authority...........................   326
      Section 503--Special Promotion Authority for Navy Career 
        Military Professors......................................   326
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters........................   327
      Section 511--Mandatory Separation of Reserve Officers in 
        the Grade of Lieutenant General or Vice Admiral after 
        Completion of 38 Years of Commissioned Service...........   327
      Section 512--Constructive Service Credit upon Original 
        Appointment of Reserve Officers in Certain Health Care 
        Professions..............................................   327
      Section 513--Maximum Period of Temporary Federal 
        Recognition of Person as Army National Guard Officer or 
        Air Force Reserve Officer................................   327
      Section 514--Military Technicians (Dual Status) in the 
        Selected Reserve.........................................   327
      Section 515--Working Group on Reintegration of Reserve 
        Component Members Returning from Deployment..............   327
      Section 516--National Guard Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 
        Program..................................................   328
      Section 517--Advance Notice to Members of Reserve 
        Components of Deployment in Support of Contingency 
        Operations...............................................   328
    Subtitle C--Education and Training...........................   329
      Section 521--Reduction or Elimination of Service Obligation 
        in an Army Reserve or Army National Guard Troop Program 
        Unit for Certain Persons Selected as Medical Students at 
        Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.....   329
      Section 522--Increase in Annual Limit on Number of ROTC 
        Scholarships Under Army Reserve and Army National Guard 
        Program..................................................   329
      Section 523--Revisions to Authority to Pay Tuition for Off-
        Duty Training or Education...............................   329
      Section 524--National Defense University Master's Degree 
        Programs.................................................   329
      Section 525--Recodification in Title 38, United States 
        Code, of Certain Educational Assistance Programs for 
        Members of the Reserve Components........................   330
      Section 526--Secretary of Defense Evaluation of the 
        Adequacy of the Degree-Granting Authorities of Certain 
        Military Universities and Educational Institutions.......   330
      Section 527--Navy Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
        Unit for Southold, Mattituck, and Greenport High Schools.   330
    Subtitle D--General Service Authorities......................   330
      Section 531--Authority to Reduce Required Service 
        Obligation for Initial Appointment of Qualified Health 
        Professionals as Officers in Critical Specialties........   330
      Section 532--Reenlistment in Former Enlisted Grade after 
        Service as an Officer....................................   331
    Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters....   331
      Section 541--Authority to Designate Certain Civilian 
        Employees of the Federal Government as Eligible for Legal 
        Assistance from Department of Defense Legal Staff 
        Resources................................................   331
    Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards...........................   331
      Section 551--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal 
        of Honor to Leslie H. Sabo, Jr., for Acts of Valor During 
        the Vietnam War..........................................   331
      Section 552--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal 
        of Honor to Henry Svehla for Acts of Valor During the 
        Korean War...............................................   331
      Section 553--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal 
        of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble for Acts of Valor During 
        the Korean War...........................................   331
      Section 554--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal 
        of Honor to Private Philip G. Shadrach for Acts of Valor 
        During the Civil War.....................................   331
      Section 555--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal 
        of Honor to Private George D. Wilson for Acts of Valor as 
        one of Andrews Raiders During the Civil War..............   332
      Section 556--Cold War Victory Medal........................   332
    Subtitle G--Impact Aid and Defense Dependents Education 
      System.....................................................   332
      Section 561--Tuition Assistance for Military Dependents in 
        Overseas Areas Where Schools Operated by Defense 
        Dependents' Education System Are Not Reasonably Available   332
      Section 562--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local 
        Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members 
        of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian 
        Employees................................................   332
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   333
      Section 571--Extension of Authority To Accept Gifts, 
        Devises, or Bequests to Benefit Members of the Armed 
        Forces, Dependents, and Civilian Employees of the 
        Department of Defense....................................   333
      Section 572--Uniform Performance Policies for Military 
        Bands and Other Musical Units............................   333
      Section 573--Repeal of Limitation on Number of Academies of 
        Department of Defense STARBASE Program in a Single State.   333
      Section 574--Combat Veterans Mentoring Program for Current 
        Members of the Armed Forces..............................   333
      Section 575--Recognition of Members of the Monuments, Fine 
        Arts, and Archives Program of the Civil Affairs and 
        Military Government Sections of the Armed Forces During 
        and Following World War II...............................   333
      Section 576--Program To Commemorate 50th Anniversary of the 
        Vietnam War..............................................   333

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   334
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   334
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   334
      Base Access for Vendors Serving Military Resale Activities.   334
      Combined Commissary and Exchange Store.....................   335
      Military Resale and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 
        Activities at Joint Bases................................   335
      Payment of Imminent Danger Pay to Members Who Serve in 
        Combat Zones for Short Periods...........................   336
      Treatment of Retired Pay for General and Flag Officers Who 
        Subsequently Return to Service on Active Duty in the 
        Reserve Component........................................   336
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   337
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   337
      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2008 Increase in Military Basic 
        Pay......................................................   337
      Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing for Reserve 
        Component, Members Without Dependents Who Attend 
        Accession Training While Maintaining a Primary Residence.   337
      Section 603--Income Replacement Payments for Reserve 
        Component Members Experiencing Extended and Frequent 
        Mobilization for Active Duty Service.....................   337
      Section 604--Participation of Members of the Uniformed 
        Services in Thrift Savings Plan..........................   337
      Section 605--Enhancement of Referral Bonus To Encourage 
        Service in the Army......................................   337
      Section 606--Guaranteed Pay Increase for Members of the 
        Armed Forces of One-Half of One Percentage Point Higher 
        Than Employment Cost Index...............................   338
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   338
      Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
        Authorities for Reserve Forces...........................   338
      Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
        Authorities for Health Care Professionals................   338
      Section 613--Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 
        for Nuclear Officers.....................................   338
      Section 614--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment 
        of Other Bonuses and Special Pays........................   338
      Section 615--Increase in Incentive Special Pay and 
        Multiyear Retention Bonus for Medical Officers...........   339
      Section 616--Increase in Dental Officer Additional Special 
        Pay......................................................   339
      Section 617--Definition of Sea Duty for Career Sea Pay to 
        Include Multi-Crew Ships.................................   339
      Section 618--Reenlistment Bonus for Members of the Selected 
        Reserve..................................................   339
      Section 619--Availability of Selected Reserve Accession 
        Bonus for Persons Who Previously Served in the Armed 
        Forces for a Short Period................................   339
      Section 620--Availability of Nuclear Officer Continuation 
        Pay for Officers with More Than 26 Years of Commissioned 
        Service..................................................   339
      Section 621--Waiver of Years-of-Service Limitation on 
        Receipt of Critical Skills Retention Bonus...............   339
      Section 622--Accession Bonus for Participants in the Armed 
        Forces Health Professional Scholarship and Financial 
        Assistance Program.......................................   340
      Section 623--Payment of Assignment Incentive Pay for 
        Reserve Members Serving in Combat Zone for More than 22 
        Months...................................................   340
      Section 624--Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate of Hardship 
        Duty Pay.................................................   341
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowance..............   341
      Section 631--Allowance for Participation in Reserve 
        Screening Conducted through Electronic Means.............   341
      Section 632--Allowance for Civilian Clothing for Members of 
        the Armed Forces Traveling in Connection with Medical 
        Evacuation...............................................   341
      Section 633--Moving Expenses for JROTC Instructors Who 
        Agree to Serve in Hard-to-Fill Positions.................   341
      Section 634--Transportation of Additional Motor Vehicle of 
        Members on Change of Permanent Station to or from 
        Nonforeign Areas Outside the Continental United States...   341
      Section 635--Payment of Inactive Duty Training Travel Costs 
        for Certain Selected Reserve Members.....................   341
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits................   342
      Section 641--Disregarding Periods of Confinement of Member 
        in Determining Benefits for Dependents Who are Victims of 
        Abuse by the Member......................................   342
      Section 642--Continuation of Authority for Members of the 
        Armed Forces to Designate a Recipient for a Portion of 
        the Death Gratuity.......................................   342
      Section 643--Recoupment of Annuity Amounts Previously Paid, 
        but Subject to Offset for Dependency and Indemnity 
        Compensation.............................................   342
      Section 644--Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for 
        Persons Affected by Required Survivor Benefit Plan 
        Annuity Offset for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.   342
      Section 645--Expansion of Combat-Related Special 
        Compensation Eligibility for Chapter 61 Military Retirees 
        with Fewer than 20 Years of Creditable Service...........   343
    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 
      Instrumentality Benefits...................................   343
      Section 651--Access to Defense Commissary and Exchange 
        System by Surviving Spouse and Dependents of Certain 
        Disabled Veterans........................................   343
      Section 652--Authority to Continue Commissary and Exchange 
        Benefits for Certain Involuntarily Separated Members of 
        the Armed Forces.........................................   343
      Section 653--Authorization of Installment Deductions from 
        Pay of Employees of Executive Branch Instrumentalities to 
        Collect Indebtedness to the United States................   343
    Subtitle F--Consolidation of Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and 
      Bonus Authorities..........................................   343
      Section 661--Consolidation of Special Pay, Incentive Pay, 
        and Bonus Authorities of the Uniformed Services..........   343
      Section 662--Transitional Provisions.......................   344
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   344
      Section 671--Expansion of Education Loan Repayment Program 
        for Members of the Selected Reserve......................   344
      Section 672--Ensuring Entry into United States after Time 
        Abroad for Permanent Resident Alien Military Spouses and 
        Children.................................................   344
      Section 673--Overseas Naturalization for Military Spouses 
        and Children.............................................   344

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   345
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   345
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   346
      TRICARE Beneficiaries and Employer Group Health Plans......   346
      Joint Unified Medical Command Studies......................   346
      Military Gynecological Cancer Education....................   347
      Military Mental Health Initiative..........................   347
      Multi-Center Clinical Research Trials for the Treatment of 
        Military Burn Victims....................................   348
      Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative..........................   348
      TRICARE Fraud Study........................................   349
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   349
      Section 701--Extension of Prohibition on Increases in 
        Certain Health Care Costs for Members of the Uniformed 
        Services.................................................   349
      Section 702--Temporary Prohibition on Increase in 
        Copayments Under Retail Pharmacy System of Pharmacy 
        Benefits Program.........................................   350
      Section 703--Fair Pricing Under Pharmacy Benefits Program..   350
      Section 704--Prohibition on Conversion of Military Medical 
        and Dental Positions to Civilian Medical and Dental 
        Positions................................................   350
      Section 705--Establishment of Nurse Practitioner Program...   350
      Section 706--Services of Mental Health Counselors..........   351
      Section 707--Extension of Pilot Program for Health Care 
        Delivery.................................................   351
      Section 708--Stipend for Members of Reserve Components for 
        Health Care for Certain Dependents.......................   351
      Section 709--Joint Pathology Center........................   351
      Section 710--Report on Training in Preservation of Remains 
        Under Combat or Combat-Related Conditions................   352
      Section 711--Pre- and Post-Deployment Assessments for the 
        Purpose of Determining the Cognitive Functioning and 
        Brain Health of Deployed Members of the Armed Forces.....   352
      Section 712--Guaranteed Funding for Walter Reed Army 
        Medical Center...........................................   352

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
    RELATED MATTERS..............................................   352
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   352
      Analysis of Contractor Payment Withholding.................   352
      Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan........................   353
      Department of the Navy Military Deputy for Acquisition.....   353
      Domestic Sourcing for Ship Components......................   354
      Domestic Steel Production..................................   354
      High Performance Magnets...................................   355
      Improving Identification and Acquisition of Commercial 
        Information Technology...................................   355
      Other Transaction Authority for IT Programs................   356
      Procurement Technical Assistance Program...................   357
      Report on the Use of Simplified Acquisition Procedures for 
        Certain Commercial Items.................................   357
      Rights to Programmatic Data................................   357
      Selected Acquisition Reports...............................   358
      Small Business Contracting.................................   359
      Strategic Materials Protection Board.......................   359
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   359
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   359
      Section 801--Definition of Commercial Services.............   359
      Section 802--Acquisition Workforce Provisions..............   359
      Section 803--Guidance on Defense Procurements Made through 
        Contracts of Other Agencies..............................   360
      Section 804--Prohibition on Procurement from Beneficiaries 
        of Foreign Subsidies.....................................   360
      Section 805--Prohibition on Procurement from Companies in 
        Violation of the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act.....   360
      Section 806--Lead Systems Integrators......................   361
      Section 807--Procurement Goal for Native Hawaiian-Serving 
        Institutions and Alaska Native-Serving Institutions......   361
      Section 808--Reinvestment in Domestic Sources of Strategic 
        Materials................................................   361
      Section 809--Clarification of the Protection of Strategic 
        Materials Critical to National Security..................   362
      Section 810--Debarment of Contractors Convicted of Criminal 
        Violations of the Arms Export Control Act................   362
    Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
      Procedures, and Limitations................................   362
      Section 811--Change to the Truth in Negotiations Act 
        Exception for the Acquisition of a Commercial Item.......   362
      Section 812--Clarification of Submission of Cost or Pricing 
        Data on Noncommercial Modifications of Commercial Items..   362
      Section 813--Plan for Restricting Government-Unique 
        Contract Clauses on Commercial Contracts.................   363
      Section 814--Extension of Authority for Use of Simplified 
        Acquisition Procedures for Certain Commercial Items......   363
      Section 815--Extension of Authority to Fill Shortage 
        Category Positions for Certain Federal Acquisition 
        Positions................................................   363
      Section 816--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain 
        Prototype Projects.......................................   363
      Section 817--Clarification of Limited Acquisition Authority 
        for Special Operations Command...........................   364
      Section 818--Exemption of Special Operations Command from 
        Certain Requirements for Contracts Relating to Vessels, 
        Aircraft, and Combat Vehicles............................   364
      Section 819--Provision of Authority to Maintain Equipment 
        to Unified Combatant Command for Joint Warfighting.......   364
    Section 820--Market Research.................................   364
    Subtitle C--Accountability in Contracting....................   365
      Section 821--Limitation on Length of Noncompetitive 
        Contracts................................................   365
      Section 822--Maximizing Fixed-Price Procurement Contracts..   365
      Section 823--Public Disclosure of Justification and 
        Approval Documents for Non-Competitive Contracts.........   366
      Section 824--Disclosure of Government Contractor Audit 
        Findings.................................................   366
      Section 825--Study of Acquisition Workforce................   367
      Section 826--Report to Congress............................   367
    Subtitle D--Contractor Provision.............................   367
      Section 831--Memorandum of Understanding on Matters 
        Relating to Contracting..................................   367
      Section 832--Comptroller General Reviews and Reports on 
        Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan......................   368
      Section 833--Definitions...................................   368
      Section 834--Competition for Equipment Supplied to Iraq and 
        Afghanistan..............................................   369
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   369
      Section 841--Rapid Commercial Information Technology 
        Identification Demonstration Project.....................   369
      Section 842--Report to Congress Required on Delays in Major 
        Phases of Acquisition Process for Major Automated 
        Information System Programs..............................   369
      Section 843--Requirement for Licensing of Certain Military 
        Designations and Likenesses of Weapons Systems to Toy and 
        Hobby Manufacturers......................................   369
      Section 844--Change in Grounds for Waiver of Limitation on 
        Service Contract to Acquire Military Flight Simulator....   370
      Section 845--Evaluation of Cost of Compliance with 
        Requirement to Buy Certain Articles from American Sources   370
      Section 846--Requirements Relating to Waivers of Certain 
        Domestic Source Limitations..............................   370
      Section 847--Multiple Cost Threshold Breaches..............   370
      Section 848--Phone Cards...................................   371
      Section 849--Jurisdiction Under Contract Disputes Act of 
        1978 over Claims, Disputes, and Appeals Arising out of 
        Maritime Contracts.......................................   371
      Section 850--Clarification of Jurisdiction of the United 
        States District Courts to Hear Bid Protest Disputes 
        Involving Maritime Contracts.............................   371

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   371
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   371
      Acquisition Management and Joint Operations of Unmanned 
        Aerial Systems...........................................   371
      Defense Policy Reorganization..............................   373
      Full Spectrum Analysis on Irregular Warfare................   373
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   375
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   375
      Section 901--Additional Requirements Relating to Limitation 
        on Major Department of Defense Headquarters Activities 
        Personnel................................................   375
      Section 902--Flexibility to Adjust the Number of Deputy 
        Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs..............................   375
      Section 903--Change in Eligibility Requirements for 
        Appointment to Department of Defense Leadership Positions   376
      Section 904--Revisions in Functions and Activities of 
        Special Operations Command...............................   376
      Section 905--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as 
        the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps..............   376
      Section 906--Management System of the Department of Defense   376
      Section 907--Acquisition Parity for Special Operations 
        Command..................................................   377
      Section 908--Department of Defense Board of Actuaries......   377
    Subtitle B--Space Activities.................................   377
      Section 911--Space Protection Policy and Strategy..........   377
      Section 912--Biennial Report on Management of Space Cadre 
        within the Department of Defense.........................   377
    Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Program................   378
      Section 921--Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory 
        Commission...............................................   378
      Section 922--Sense of Congress on Completion of Destruction 
        of United States Chemical Weapons Stockpile..............   378
    Subtitle D--Intelligence Related Matters.....................   378
      Section 931--Reports on Foreign Language Proficiency.......   378
      Section 932--Technical Amendments to Title 10, United 
        States Code, Arising from Enactment of the intelligence 
        Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004..............   379
    Subtitle E--Roles and Missions Analysis......................   380
      Section 941--Analysis and Organization of Roles and 
        Missions of Department of Defense........................   380
      Section 942--Identification of Core Competencies of the 
        Military Departments and Other Entities within the 
        Department of Defense....................................   380
      Section 943--Review of Capabilities of the Military 
        Departments and other Entities...........................   380
      Section 944--Joint Requirements Oversight Council 
        Additional Duties Relating to Core Mission Areas.........   381
      Section 945--Requirement for Certification of Major Systems 
        Prior to Technology Development..........................   381
      Section 946--Presentation of Future-Years Mission Budget by 
        Core Mission Area........................................   382
      Section 947--Future Capability Planning by Joint 
        Requirements Oversight Council...........................   382
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   382
      Section 951--Department of Defense Consideration of Effect 
        of Climate Change on Department Facilities, Capabilities, 
        and Missions.............................................   382
      Section 952--Interagency Policy Coordination...............   383
      Section 953--Expansion of Employment Creditable Under 
        Service Agreements Under National Security Education 
        Program..................................................   383
      Section 954--Study of National Security Interagency System.   383

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   384
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   384
    Counter-Drug Activities......................................   384
      Overview...................................................   384
      Items of Special Interest..................................   384
        Budget requests..........................................   384
        International Support....................................   385
        Southwest Border Fence...................................   385
        Airborne Counter-Narcotics/Terrorism Threat Protection 
          System.................................................   386
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   386
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   386
      Section 1001--General Transfer Authority...................   386
      Section 1002--United States Contribution to NATO Common-
        Funded Budgets in Fiscal Year 2008.......................   386
    Subtitle B--Policy Relating to Vessels and Shipyards.........   386
      Section 1011--Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built 
        Vessels..................................................   386
      Section 1012--Policy Relating to Major Combatant Vessels of 
        the Strike Forces of the United States Navy..............   387
    Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   387
      Section 1021--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces 
        to Provide Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting 
        Counter-Terrorism Activities.............................   387
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................   387
      Section 1031--Extension and Modification of Report Relating 
        to Hardened and Deeply Buried Targets....................   387
      Section 1032--Comptroller General Review of the Joint 
        Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization..........   388
      Section 1033--Report on a National Joint Modeling and 
        Simulation Development Strategy..........................   388
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   388
      Section 1041--Enhancement of Corrosion Control and 
        Prevention Functions within the Department of Defense....   388
      Section 1042--Support by National Guard for National 
        Special Security Events and Other Critical National 
        Security Activities......................................   389
      Section 1043--Improved Authority to Provide Rewards for 
        Assistance in Combating Terrorism........................   389
      Section 1044--Revision of Proficiency Flying Definition....   390
      Section 1045--Support for Non-Federal Development and 
        Testing of Material for Chemical Agent Defense...........   390
      Section 1046--Congressional Commission on the Strategic 
        Posture of the United States.............................   390
      Section 1047--Technical and Clerical Amendments............   390
      Section 1048--Repeal of Certification Requirements.........   390
      Section 1049--Prohibition on Sale by Department of Defense 
        of Parts for F-14 Fighter Aircraft.......................   391
      Section 1050--Maintenance of Capability for Space-Based 
        Nuclear Detection........................................   391
      Section 1051--Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil 
        Support Teams............................................   391
      Section 1052--Sense of Congress Regarding Need to Replace 
        Army M109 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer..................   391
      Section 1053--Sense of Congress Regarding Detainees at 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba......................   391
      Section 1054--Repeal of Provisions in Section 1076 of 
        Public Law 109-364 Relating to Use of Armed Forces in 
        Major Public Emergencies.................................   392

TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   392
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   392
      Incentives for Deployed Civilians..........................   392
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   393
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   393
      Section 1101--Compensation for Federal Wage System 
        Employees for Certain Travel Hours.......................   393
      Section 1102--Special Benefits for Civilian Employees 
        Assigned on Deployment Temporary Change of Station.......   393
      Section 1103--Accumulation of Annual Leave by Senior Level 
        Employees................................................   393
      Section 1104--Travel Compensation for Wage Grade Personnel.   394
      Section 1105--Death Gratuity Authorized for Federal 
        Employees................................................   394
      Section 1106--Modifications to the National Security 
        Personnel System.........................................   394
      Section 1107--Annuity Commencing Dates.....................   395
      Section 1108--Flexibility in Setting Pay for Employees Who 
        Move from a Department of Defense or Coast Guard 
        Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Position to a 
        Position in the General Schedule Pay System..............   395
      Section 1109--Transportation of Dependents, Household 
        Effects, and Personal Property to Former Home Following 
        Death of Federal Employee Where Death Resulted from 
        Disease or Injury Incurred in a Combat zone..............   395
      Section 1110--Use of Leave Transfer Program by Wounded 
        Veterans Who are Federal Employees.......................   396
      Section 1111--Requirement for Full Implementation of 
        Personnel Demonstration Project..........................   396

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS.....................   396
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   396
      Accuracy of Tracing Personnel Data on Iraqi Security Forces   396
      Contributions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 
        International Security Assistance Force to Security and 
        Stability in Afghanistan.................................   397
      Iraqi WMD Scientists.......................................   397
      Report on Certain Cooperative Activities Involving the 
        United States and India..................................   397
      Report on Combatant Commanders Initiative Fund.............   398
      Report On Feasibility and Advisability of a Stability 
        Operations Fellowship Program............................   400
      Report on Use of Liaison Authorities.......................   400
      Train and Equip Authorities................................   400
      United States' Contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty 
        Organization-led International Security Assistance Force.   401
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   402
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   402
      Section 1201--Military-to-Military Contacts and Comparable 
        Activities...............................................   402
      Section 1202--Authority for Support of Military Operations 
        to Combat Terrorism......................................   402
      Section 1203--Medical Care and Temporary Duty Travel 
        Expenses for Liaison Officers of Certain Foreign Nations.   402
      Section 1204--Extension and Expansion of Department of 
        Defense Authority to Participate in Multinational 
        Military Centers of Excellence...........................   403
      Section 1205--Reauthorization of Commanders' Emergency 
        Response Program.........................................   403
      Section 1206--Expansion of Program to Build the Capacity of 
        Foreign Military Forces to Include Pakistan's Other 
        Security Forces..........................................   403
      Section 1207--Authority to Provide Assistance to Foreign 
        Nations to Assist in Recovery and Accounting Activities 
        for Missing United States Government Personnel...........   403
      Section 1208--Authority to Provide Automatic Identification 
        System Data on Maritime Shipping to Foreign Countries and 
        International Organizations..............................   404
      Section 1209--Report on Foreign Assistance-Related 
        Programs, Projects, and Activities Carried out by the 
        Department of Defense....................................   404
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq.........................   404
      Section 1221--Modification of Authorities Relating to the 
        Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction........   404
      Section 1222--Continuation of Prohibition on Establishment 
        of Permanent Military Installations in Iraq or United 
        States Control Over Oil Resources of Iraq................   404
      Section 1223--Report on Department of Defense Efforts to 
        Build the Capacity of the Government of Iraq to Carry Out 
        Reconstruction Activities in Iraq........................   404
      Section 1224--Report on Implementation of Multi-National 
        Forces-Iraq/United States Embassy Baghdad Joint Campaign 
        Plan and Efforts to Achieve Political Reform in Iraq.....   405
      Section 1225--Report on Training of the Iraqi Security 
        Forces...................................................   406
      Section 1226--Sense of Congress on Responsibilities of the 
        Iraqi Council of Representatives to Enact Laws to Achieve 
        Political Reform and Diminish Support for the Insurgency 
        in Iraq..................................................   406
    Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Afghanistan..................   406
      Section 1231--Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
        Reconstruction...........................................   406
      Section 1232--Report on Progress toward Security and 
        Stability in Afghanistan.................................   407
      Section 1233--Report on Progress of the Department of 
        Defense's Counter-Narcotics Programs for Afghanistan.....   407
      Section 1234--United States Plan for Sustaining the 
        Afghanistan National Security Forces.....................   408
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   408
      Section 1241--Cooperative Research and Development 
        Agreements: NATO Organizations; Allied and Friendly 
        Foreign Countries........................................   408
      Section 1242--Extension of Counterproliferation Program 
        Review Committee.........................................   409
      Section 1243--Sense of Congress Concerning the Western 
        Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation............   409
      Section 1244--Sense of Congress Concerning the Strategic 
        Military Capabilities and Intentions of the People's 
        Republic of China........................................   409

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE 
  FORMER SOVIET UNION............................................   410
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   410
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   410
      Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project............   410
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   411
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs and Funds.......................................   411
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   411
      Section 1303--New Initiatives for the Cooperative Threat 
        Reduction Program........................................   411
      Section 1304--Requirements Relating to Chemical Weapons 
        Destruction Shchuch'ye, Russia...........................   412
      Section 1305--Repeal of Restrictions on Cooperative Threat 
        Reduction Program........................................   413
      Section 1306--Authority to Use Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Funds Outside the Former Soviet Union....................   413

TITLE XIV--WOUNDED WARRIOR ASSISTANCE............................   413
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   413
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   413
      Section 1401--Definitions..................................   413
    Subtitle A--Improved Assistance for Wounded Warriors.........   414
      Section 1411--Improvements to Medical and Dental Care for 
        Members of the Armed Forces Assigned to Hospitals in an 
        Outpatient Status........................................   414
      Section 1412--Establishment of a Department of Defense-wide 
        Ombudsman Office.........................................   414
      Section 1413--Establishment of Toll-Free Hot Line for 
        Reporting Deficiencies in Medical-Related Support 
        Facilities and Expedited Response to Reports of 
        Deficiencies.............................................   414
      Section 1414--Notification to Congress of Hospitalization 
        of Combat Wounded Service Members........................   414
      Section 1415--Independent Medical Advocate for Members 
        before Medical Evaluation Boards.........................   415
      Section 1416--Training and Workload for Physical Evaluation 
        Board Liaison Officers...................................   415
      Section 1417--Standardized Training Program and Curriculum 
        for Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System...   415
      Section 1418--Improved Training for Health Care 
        Professionals, Medical Care Case Managers, and Service 
        Member Advocates on Particular Conditions of Recovering 
        Service Members..........................................   415
      Section 1419--Pilot Program to Establish an Army Wounded 
        Warrior Battalion at an Appropriate Active Duty Base.....   415
      Section 1420--Criteria for Removal of Member from Temporary 
        Disability Retired List..................................   416
      Section 1421--Improved Transition of Members of the Armed 
        Forces to Department of Veterans Affairs upon Retirement 
        or Separation............................................   416
      Section 1422--Establishment of Medical Support Fund for 
        Support of Members of the Armed Forces Returning to 
        Military Service or Civilian Life........................   416
      Section 1423--Oversight Board for Wounded Warriors.........   416
      Section 1424--Option for Members of Reserve Components to 
        Use Military Medical Treatment Facilities Closest to Home 
        for Certain Injuries.....................................   416
      Section 1425--Plans and Research for Reducing Post-
        Traumatic Stress Disorder................................   417
    Subtitle B--Studies and Reports..............................   417
      Section 1431--Annual Report on Military Medical Facilities.   417
      Section 1432--Access of Recovering Service Members to 
        Adequate Outpatient Residential Facilities...............   417
      Section 1433--Evaluation and Report on Department of 
        Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Disability 
        Evaluation Systems.......................................   417
      Section 1434--Study and Report on Support Services for 
        Families of Recovering Service Members...................   418
      Section 1435--Report on Traumatic Brain Injury 
        Classifications..........................................   418
      Section 1436--Evaluation of the Polytrauma Liaison Officer/
        Non-Commissioned Officer Program.........................   418
      Section 1437--Study and Report on Standard Soldier Patient 
        Tracking System..........................................   418
      Section 1438--Study and Report on Waiting Periods for 
        Appointments at Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
        Facilities...............................................   418
    Subtitle C--General Provisions...............................   419
      Section 1451--Moratorium on Conversion to Contractor 
        Performance of Department of Defense Functions at 
        Military Medical Facilities..............................   419
      Section 1452--Prohibition on Transfer of Resources from 
        Medical Care.............................................   419
      Section 1453--Increase in Physicians at Hospitals of the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs...........................   419

TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS DUE TO 
  OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.........   419
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   419
  SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS................................   419
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   420
      Procurement................................................   464
        F/A-18E/F................................................   464
        F-15 modification........................................   464
        Hellfire missiles........................................   464
        Joint network node.......................................   465
        Joint strike fighter.....................................   465
        MC-130J..................................................   465
        Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle..................   466
        Radio, improved high frequency, commercial off the shelf 
          family.................................................   467
        Single channel ground and airborne radio system family...   467
        Tactical operations centers reduction....................   468
      Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation................   468
        A-10 squadrons...........................................   468
        E-10 squadrons...........................................   468
        F-16 squadrons...........................................   469
      Operation and Maintenance..................................   469
        Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.....................   469
      Military Personnel.........................................   470
      Military Construction......................................   470
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   471
      Section 1501--Purpose and Statement of Congressional Policy   471
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   471
      Section 1502--Army Procurement.............................   471
      Section 1503--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement............   471
      Section 1504--Air Force Procurement........................   471
      Section 1505--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund   471
      Section 1506--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement..........   471
      Section 1507--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...   471
      Section 1508--Operations and Maintenance...................   471
      Section 1509--Working Capital Funds........................   471
      Section 1510--Other Department of Defense Programs.........   471
      Section 1511--Iraq Freedom Fund............................   472
      Section 1512--Iraq Security Forces Fund....................   472
      Section 1513--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.............   472
      Section 1514--Military Personnel...........................   472
      Section 1515--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   472
      Section 1516--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   472
      Section 1517--Treatment as Additional Authorizations.......   472

TITLE XVI--NATIONAL GUARD ENHANCEMENT............................   472
      ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST..................................   472
      Joint Qualification Credit for Service as the Adjutant 
        General of a State.......................................   472
      Report on Reforms Needed to Produce Sufficient Numbers of 
        Qualified Reserve Component Personnel to Serve in Senior 
        General and Flag Officer Positions.......................   473
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   474
      Section 1601--Short Title..................................   474
    Subtitle A--National Guard Bureau............................   474
      Section 1611--Enhancement of Duties and Position of Chief 
        of the National Guard Bureau.............................   474
      Section 1612--Establishment of the National Guard Bureau as 
        Joint Activity of Department of Defense..................   475
      Section 1613--Enhancement of Functions of National Guard 
        Bureau...................................................   475
      Section 1614--Requirement for Secretary of Defense to 
        Prepare Annual Plan for Response to Natural Disasters and 
        Terrorist Events.........................................   476
      Section 1615--Determination of Department of Defense Civil 
        Support Requirements.....................................   476
      Section 1616--Conforming and Clerical Amendments...........   477
    Subtitle B--Additional Reserve Component Enhancements........   477
      Section 1621--United States Northern Command...............   477
      Section 1622--Council of Governors.........................   478
      Section 1623--Reserve Policy Board.........................   478
      Section 1624--Requirements for Certain High-Level Positions 
        to be Held by Reserve Component General or Flag Officers.   478
      Section 1625--Retirement Age and Years of Service 
        Limitations on Certain Reserve General and Flag Officers.   479
      Section 1626--Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to 
        National Guard Equipment.................................   479

TITLE XVII--DEFENSE READINESS PRODUCTION BOARD...................   479
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   479
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   480
      Section 1701--Purpose......................................   480
      Section 1702--Establishment of Defense Readiness Production 
        Board....................................................   480
      Section 1703--Defense Production Industry Advisory Board...   481
      Section 1704--Role of Chairman of Board in Certain 
        Reporting Processes......................................   481
      Section 1705--Authority to Use Multiyear Contracts.........   481
      Section 1706--Transfer Authority...........................   482
      Section 1707--Special Authority for Use of Working Capital 
        Funds for Critical Readiness Requirements................   482
      Section 1708--Strategic Readiness Fund.....................   482

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   482
  PURPOSE........................................................   482
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW..............   482
      Section 2001--Short Title..................................   508

TITLE XXI--ARMY..................................................   508
  SUMMARY........................................................   508
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   508
      Advanced Individual Training Barracks......................   508
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   508
      Planning and Design........................................   509
      Unspecified Minor Construction.............................   509
      Wounded Warrior Accessibility Requirements.................   509
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   510
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   510
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   510
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   510
      Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   510
      Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2006 Projects........................   510

TITLE XXII--NAVY.................................................   510
  SUMMARY........................................................   510
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   510
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   510
      Naval Master Jet Basing....................................   511
      Planning and Design, Navy..................................   512
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   512
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   512
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   512
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   512
      Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   512
      Section 2205--Repeal of Authorization for Construction of 
        Navy Outlying Landing Field, Washington County, North 
        Carolina.................................................   512

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE...........................................   513
  SUMMARY........................................................   513
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   513
      Planning and Design, Air Force.............................   513
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   513
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   513
      Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   513
      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   513
      Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   513
      Section 2305--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2006 Projects........................   513

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES.....................................   514
  SUMMARY........................................................   514
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   514
      BRAC 2005 Implementation...................................   514
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   514
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   514
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   514
      Section 2402--Energy Conservation Projects.................   515
      Section 2403--Authorized Base Realignment and Closure 
        Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base 
        Closure Account 2005.....................................   515
      Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense 
        Agencies.................................................   515

TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
    PROGRAM......................................................   515
  SUMMARY........................................................   515
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   515
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   515
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   515

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   515
  SUMMARY........................................................   515
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   516
      Niagara Air Reserve Base, New York.........................   516
      Planning and Design, Air Reserve...........................   516
      Planning and Design, Army National Guard...................   516
      Planning and Design, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve........   516
      Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard........   517
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISION..........................................   517
      Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   517

TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS..........   517
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   517
      Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts 
        Required to be Specified by Law..........................   517
      Section 2702--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2005 Projects.......................................   517
      Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2004 Projects.......................................   517
      Section 2704--Effective Date...............................   518

TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   518
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   518
      Carrier Basing.............................................   518
      Department of Defense Energetics Center Vision 2020........   518
      Energy Conversation Forum..................................   518
      F-35 Basing and Training Strategy..........................   519
      Land Use Planning..........................................   519
      Military Construction Pricing Inequities...................   520
      Military Family Housing Leases in Korea....................   520
      Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency.....................   521
      Report on United States Military Bases and Facilities in 
        Afghanistan..............................................   521
      Responsiveness of the Department of Defense to 
        Congressional Reporting Requirements.....................   522
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   522
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
        Housing Changes..........................................   522
      Section 2801--Temporary Authority to Support Revitalization 
        of Department of Defense Laboratories through Unspecified 
        Minor Military Construction Projects.....................   522
      Section 2802--Increased Threshold for Congressional 
        Notification of Leases for Military Family Housing 
        Facilities in Foreign Countries..........................   522
      Section 2803--Limitations on Use of Alternative Authority 
        for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing for 
        Privatization of Temporary Lodging Facilities............   522
      Section 2804--Expansion of Authority to Exchange Reserve 
        Component Facilities.....................................   523
      Section 2805--Extension of Authority to Accept Cash 
        Equalization Payments for Reserve Component Facility 
        Exchanges................................................   523
      Section 2806--Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance 
        Funds for Construction Projects Outside the United States   523
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   523
      Section 2811--Continued Consolidation of Real Property 
        Provisions Without Substantive Change....................   523
      Section 2812--Cooperative Agreement Authority for 
        Management of Cultural Resources on Certain Sites Outside 
        Military Installations...................................   523
      Section 2813--Agreements to Limit Encroachments and other 
        Constraints on Military Training, Testing, and Operations   524
      Section 2814--Expansion to all Military Departments of Army 
        Pilot Program for Purchase of Certain Municipal Services 
        for Military Installations...............................   524
      Section 2815--Retention of Proceeds from Enhanced Use 
        Leases at Selfridge Air National Guard Base..............   524
      Section 2816--Prohibition on Commercial Flights into 
        Selfridge Air National Guard Base........................   524
    Subtitle C--Base Closure and Realignment.....................   524
      Section 2821--Transfer of Funds from Department of Defense 
        Base Closure Account 2005 to Department of Defense 
        Housing Funds............................................   524
    Subtitle D--Land Conveyances.................................   524
      Section 2831--Conditions on Acquisition of Land for 
        Expansion of Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado........   524
      Section 2832--Grant of Easement, Eglin Air Force Base, 
        Florida..................................................   525
      Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Lynn Haven Fuel Depot, Lynn 
        Haven, Florida...........................................   525
      Section 2834--Additional Conditions on Lease of Property 
        for Headquarters Facility for United States Southern 
        Command, Florida.........................................   525
      Section 2835--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Former Nike Missile 
        Site, Grosse Isle, Michigan..............................   525
      Section 2836--Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas..............   525
      Sectopm 2837--Exchange of Jurisdiction Over Real Property 
        Involving Fort Belvoir, Virginia.........................   525
      Section 2838--Modification of Conveyance Authority, Marine 
        Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California...................   526
    Subtitle E--Energy Security..................................   526
      Section 2851--Repeal of Congressional Notification 
        Requirement Regarding Cancellation Ceiling for Department 
        of Defense Energy Savings Performance Contracts..........   526
      Section 2852--Report on Opportunities for Leveraging Funds 
        of the Department of Defense and States to Prevent 
        Disruption in Event of Electric Grid or Pipeline Failures   526
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   526
      Section 2861--Revised Deadline for Transfer of Arlington 
        Naval Annex to Arlington National Cemetery...............   526
      Section 2862--Transfer of Jurisdiction over Air Force 
        Memorial to Department of the Air Force..................   526
      Section 2863--Establishment of National Military Working 
        Dog Teams Monument on Suitable Military Installations....   527
      Section 2864--Naming Housing Facility at Fort Carson, 
        Colorado, in Honor of The Honorable Joel Hefley, a Former 
        Member of the United States House of Representatives.....   527
      Section 2865--Naming Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center 
        at Rock Island, Illinois, in Honor of The Honorable Lane 
        Evans, a Former Member of the United States House of 
        Representatives..........................................   527
      Section 2866--Naming of Research Laboratory at Air Force 
        Rome Research Site, Rome, New York, in Honor of The 
        Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert, a Former Member of the 
        United States House of Representatives...................   527
      Section 2867--Naming of Administration Building at Joint 
        Systems Manufacturing Center, Lima, Ohio, in Honor of The 
        Honorable Michael G. Oxley, a Former Member of the United 
        States House of Representatives..........................   527
      Section 2868--Naming of the Logistics Automation Training 
        Facility, Army Quartermaster Center and School, Fort Lee, 
        Virginia, in honor of General Richard H. Thompson........   527

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
    AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.....................................   528

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   528
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   528
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   528
    National Nuclear Security Administration.....................   528
      Overview...................................................   528
      Weapons Activities.........................................   528
        Future Nuclear Weapons Stockpile and Complex.............   528
          Reliable Replacement Warhead...........................   528
          Consolidated Plutonium Center..........................   529
          B61 Life Extension Program.............................   530
        Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 
          Campaign...............................................   530
        Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign...............   530
        Engineering Campagin.....................................   531
        Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities...............   531
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.............................   531
      Overview...................................................   531
        National Nuclear Security Administration Office of the 
          Administrator..........................................   532
        Nonproliferation, Research and Development...............   532
        Radiation Detection Technology...........................   533
        Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Capabilities 
          Replacement Laboratory.................................   533
        Nonproliferation and International Security..............   533
        International Materials Protection and Cooperation.......   534
        Second Line of Defense...................................   534
        Global Threat Reduction Initiative.......................   534
        Fissile Materials Disposition............................   535
          Disposition of Surplus Plutonium.......................   535
          Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition..........   535
    Environmental and Other Defense Activities...................   536
      Overview...................................................   536
        Salt Waste Processing Facility...........................   537
        Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.................   537
        Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order Milestones..   537
        Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal...........................   538
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   538
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   538
      Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration.....   538
      Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................   538
      Section 3103--Other Defense Activities.....................   538
      Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal...............   538
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   538
      Section 3111--Study on Using Existing Pits for the Reliable 
        Replacement Warhead Program..............................   538
      Section 3112--National Nuclear Security Administration 
        (NNSA) Study on Nuclear Weapons Complex Protective Forces   539
      Section 3113--Report on Retirement and Dismantlement of 
        Nuclear Warheads.........................................   539
      Section 3114--Assessment of Security Risks Posed to Nuclear 
        Weapons Complex..........................................   539
      Section 3115--Department of Energy Report on Plan to 
        Strengthen and Expand International Radiological Threat 
        Reduction Program........................................   539
      Section 3116--Department of Energy Report on Plan to 
        Strengthen and Expand Materials Cooperation Control and 
        Accounting Program.......................................   540
      Section 3117--Authority to Use International Nuclear 
        Materials Protection and Cooperation Program Funds 
        Outside the Former Soviet Union..........................   540
      Section 3118--Increased Authority for Ombudsman Under 
        Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
        Program..................................................   540

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   541
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   541
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   541
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   541

TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.........................   541
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   541
      Beryllium Shortfalls.......................................   541
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   541
      Section 3301--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 
        Funds....................................................   541
      Section 3302--Revisions to Required Receipt Objectives for 
        Previously Authorized Disposals from National Defense 
        Stockpile................................................   542

TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................   542
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   542
      Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations..............   542

TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   542
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   542
      Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program...........................   542
      Student Incentive Payments at State Maritime Academies.....   543
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   544
      Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal 
        Year 2008................................................   544
      Section 3502--Temporary Authority to Transfer Obsolete 
        Combatant Vessels to Navy for Disposal...................   544
Departmental Data................................................   544
  Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   544
Communications From Other Committees.............................   546
Fiscal Data......................................................   557
  Congressional Budget Office Estimate...........................   557
  Committee Cost Estimate........................................   557
Compliance with House Rule XXI...................................   558
Oversight Findings...............................................   572
General Performance Goals and Objectives.........................   572
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................   573
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   573
Record Votes.....................................................   573
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   584
Additional Views.................................................   585
  Additional views of Duncan Hunter, Jim Saxton, John M. McHugh, 
    Terry Everett, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Mac Thornberry, 
    Robin Hayes, W. Todd Akin, J. Randy Forbes, Jeff Miller, Joe 
    Wilson, Rob Bishop, Michael Turner, John Kline, Candice S. 
    Miller, Phil Gingrey, Michael D. Rogers, Trent Franks, Thelma 
    D. Drake, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, K. Michael Conaway.........   585
  Additional views of Duncan Hunter..............................   588
  Additional views of Solomon P. Ortiz, Carol Shea-Porter........   589
  Additional views of Solomon P. Ortiz, Neil Abercrombie, Rob 
    Bishop, Walter B. Jones, Carol Shea-Porter, Mike Rogers......   590
  Additional views of Solomon P. Ortiz, Loretta Sanchez..........   592
  Additional views of Trent Franks, Jeff Miller..................   626
  Additional views of Thelma Drake, J. Randy Forbes..............   639
  Additional views of Cathy McMorris Rodgers.....................   641



110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-146

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



 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                _______
                                

  May 11, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1585]

    The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, 
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. 1585. 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 OF THE LEGISLATION

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

            RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS

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

                  SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL

    The President requested budget authority of $647.2 billion 
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2008. 
Of this amount, the President requested $483.2 billion for the 
Department of Defense, including $21.2 billion for military 
construction and family housing and $141.8 billion for ongoing 
costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. The defense budget request for fiscal year 2008 also 
included $17.3 billion for Department of Energy national 
security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board.
    The committee recommends an overall level of $648.6 billion 
in budget authority of which $141.6 is for ongoing military 
operations. The amount of budget authority in the bill not 
directly associated with these operations represents a decrease 
of approximately $5.9 billion from the amount authorized for 
appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 109-364).

                    SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

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


                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008, reflects the House Committee on Armed 
Services' continued and unwavering support for the men and 
women of the armed forces and the civilian employees of the 
Department of Defense (DOD). The Department is deeply engaged 
in a number of ongoing military operations around the world, 
most significantly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 
extent and intensity of the activities of the Department in the 
past year have served to highlight the incredible ingenuity, 
resourcefulness, valor, and sacrifice of our armed forces. 
While recognizing the impossibility of the task, the committee 
attempted to write a bill equal to the dedication shown by 
these professionals.
    The committee's recommendations for H.R. 1585 are focused 
first and foremost on readiness. After more than five years at 
war, the strain of ongoing operations has taken a substantial 
toll on our military. DOD's reports on the state of readiness 
of our ground forces, particularly our non-deployed and next-
to-deploy forces, are of deep concern. With long term 
deployments in harsh environments wearing out military 
equipment at an accelerated rate, many stateside units are not 
fully equipped and would not be considered ready if called upon 
to respond during an emergency. Lack of equipment and the high 
tempo of operations have forced the services to train only for 
immediate mission requirements, shortchanging training for 
other types of threats. In addition to providing increased 
funding for readiness accounts, the committee believes that 
more can be done to mobilize the industrial base in support of 
the armed forces.
    The strain on the armed forces inevitably takes a heavy 
toll on service members and their families. The committee is 
concerned that deployments of active and reserve component 
forces are longer and significantly more frequent than ever in 
recent history, and has worked to ease this burden. These 
efforts include authorizing a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay 
increase for military service members, further reducing the 
military pay gap, prohibiting increases in health care fees, 
and increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Recent 
revelations about Walter Reed Army Medical Center have also 
added new urgency to the committee's ongoing efforts to address 
problems in the care and processing of warriors transitioning 
from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
    In a time of war, H.R. 1585 attempts to address the near-
term needs of the armed forces first, but the committee was 
also mindful of the longer-term needs of the Department of 
Defense. The committee requires a thorough analysis of the 
roles and missions of the Department of Defense and a review of 
the core competencies of the military departments. This 
analysis is intended to help ensure the effective and efficient 
organization of the Department's resources in the future. The 
committee's overarching recommendations emphasized oversight 
and accountability.

Restoring Readiness

    Equipment readiness, particularly for Army and Marine Corps 
ground forces, has been severely impacted by current operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army readiness has dropped to levels 
not seen since the 1970s. Today, every non-deployed Army and 
National Guard combat brigade would face significant challenges 
completing their assigned missions if they were called upon to 
fight. Despite more than $35.0 billion in supplemental 
congressional appropriations for the ongoing reset of the 
Army's equipment since 2001, deficiencies in equipment 
readiness persist. While the Navy shows some level of recovery 
in aviation readiness in fiscal year 2008, Air Force readiness 
continues to decline due to a high tempo of operations. Flying 
more than 200 sorties per day in the United States Central 
Command area of responsibility, the Air Force's high 
utilization of a smaller, older air fleet has resulted in 
readiness rates that are 17 percent below unit operational 
readiness rates prior to September 11, 2001, and are below the 
all-time low levels observed last year.
    In addition to the equipment shortfalls, the committee is 
also concerned about degradation in training due to high 
operational tempo and funding reductions. The committee notes 
that ground force training is focused solely on current 
operations and that full-spectrum combat training proficiency 
has declined precipitously. The high tempo of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom has also reduced the 
time available for units to train between deployments. 
Constraints on time and equipment have forced commanders to 
seek efficiencies in completing required pre-deployment 
training. Rotations at the National Training Center were 
eliminated for the last two brigade combat teams deployed to 
Iraq, with the units conducting home-station training in the 
states of Washington and Georgia, instead of in the desert at 
Fort Irwin, California.
    Under current plans, critical readiness shortfalls will 
persist for nearly a decade. Therefore, the committee 
recommends the establishment of a Defense Readiness Production 
Board to act as a dedicated advisory body to the Secretary of 
Defense, focused on identifying and correcting the most serious 
readiness shortfalls. The board would serve to elevate the 
identification and approval of critical readiness requirements 
to a level above the military services, where such reviews have 
been inherently constrained by budget limitations and the 
processes used to formulate them. The committee also recommends 
additional readiness funding and creates significant new 
authorities to expedite DOD's ability to address critical 
readiness requirements.

Taking Care of Service Members and Their Families

    The committee continues to believe that successful 
recruiting and retention in a wartime environment directly 
depends on the close oversight of compensation and benefit 
programs to ensure that they remain robust, flexible, and 
effective. The committee recommends an across-the-board pay 
raise of 3.5 percent, one-half of one percent above pay raise 
levels in the private sector as measured by the Employment Cost 
Index for the ninth consecutive year. The committee also 
supports the proposal of the Department of Defense's Tenth 
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation to consolidate and 
simplify the system of special and incentive pays. The 
committee recommends reform of those pays to make them more 
understandable and easier to administer.
    The committee strongly supports the proposed increase in 
end strength for the active Army and Marine Corps submitted as 
part of the fiscal year 2008 budget request. However, the 
committee is concerned that the proposed increase is phased in 
over five years even while today's end strength levels remain 
too low to meet the demands of current requirements. The 
committee continues to recommend active end strength levels 
greater than those requested. The committee's recommendation 
for fiscal year 2008 would increase the active Army end 
strength by 36,000 and the Marine Corps end strength by 9,000 
above the budget request.
    The committee is also concerned that, within the Defense 
Health Program, the President's budget anticipated savings of 
$1.9 billion on potential recommendations from the task force 
on the future of military health care. The committee is 
concerned that assuming fee increases in the President's budget 
request may taint the independence of the task force and its 
work. The committee recommends restoring the $1.9 billion in 
savings to the Defense Health Program. While well aware of 
rising health care costs within the Department, but that any 
proposed recommendations that directly impact service members, 
retirees and their families must be done in a comprehensive and 
prudent manner.

Ongoing Military Operations

    The ongoing military operations of the Department of 
Defense have consumed in excess of $500.0 billion over the last 
five years, all of which has been provided in emergency 
supplemental appropriations with limited congressional 
oversight. Fiscal year 2008 represents the first fiscal year 
that the Department, pursuant to section 1008 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), submitted a full-year budget request for 
ongoing military operations along with its fiscal year 2008 
base budget request. The committee has reviewed and authorized 
the entirety of the Department of Defense's portion of this 
request, a significant step toward restoring appropriate 
oversight of defense spending. In addition, the committee took 
significant steps to address the strategic direction of U.S. 
policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan by requiring the 
reevaluation of the policy in Iraq, and by requiring a long 
term plan for sustaining stability in Afghanistan.

Roles and missions

    The current structure of the Department of Defense was 
established in the National Security Act of 1947, which created 
the Department, and placed the three military departments 
within it. Efforts at defense reform since have focused on 
enhancing the Office of the Secretary of Defense, improving the 
joint operational command and control of military forces, and 
on creating specialized capabilities such as special operations 
forces. However, the basic structure of the Department and the 
division of labor between the military services has not 
dramatically changed. The committee believes that a thorough 
review of roles and missions is overdue.
    The committee believes that the missions of the Department 
of Defense must be clearly defined. As important as what the 
missions of the Department are, and how they are organized and 
distributed, is what the missions of the Department of Defense 
are not. In recent years, the shortcomings of the interagency 
process have led the Department to assume missions that are not 
core military responsibilities. A review of roles and missions 
would allow the Department a chance to correct excesses in this 
area. The military services bring certain core competencies to 
the execution of DOD's missions. Defining these core 
competencies would allow the Department to evaluate where the 
military services are engaged in missions for which they are 
not ideally organized, trained, and equipped. It would also 
allow the Department to determine areas where core competencies 
are lacking. The committee also believes that the organization 
of roles and missions should be reflected in organization of 
the requirements and budget processes of the Department.

Oversight and Accountability

    The committee remains concerned about the level of 
oversight for contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. These 
countries present uniquely complex challenges for contracting 
and contract oversight, but U.S. efforts in these countries 
will continue to require significant contractor support. The 
committee believes that government responsibilities for a range 
of issues involving contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
unclear. The committee believes that clarification of roles and 
responsibilities for contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
increased oversight will enhance the effectiveness of U.S. 
Government efforts in both countries. Further, consistent with 
its longstanding interest in and jurisdiction over matters of 
acquisition, the committee worked to improve the ability of the 
heads of all federal agencies to promote competition in 
contracting and to maximize the use of efficient contracting 
methods such as fixed price contracting in procurement 
programs.

Balancing Near and Longer-Term Military Capabilities

    The committee made significant adjustments in the areas of 
procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation in 
an effort to balance the urgent near-term requirements of the 
Department of Defense against longer-term requirements. 
Adjustments that the committee made in this area were focused 
on delays in programs, or portions of programs, not scheduled 
to field equipment for five or more years, while transferring 
funding to warfighting priorities, such as fully funding the 
combatant commander's requirement for the mine resistant ambush 
protected vehicle. The committee took steps to reverse the 
decline in the Navy's fleet by adding funding for construction 
of three ships. Additionally, the committee took steps to 
address concerns about aging aircraft and the operational tempo 
of the Department's strategic mobility aircraft fleet by adding 
funding for 10 additional C-17 aircraft.

                                HEARINGS

    Committee consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 results from hearings 
that began on January 11, 2007, and that were completed on 
April 19, 2007. The full committee conducted 20 sessions. In 
addition, a total of 36 sessions were conducted by 6 different 
subcommittees on various titles of the bill.

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $101.7 
billion for procurement. This represents a $28.1 billion 
increase from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommends authorization of $102.7 billion, 
an increase of $1.0 billion from the fiscal year 2008 request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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 2008 contained $4.4 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $3.9 billion, a decrease of $433.8 
million, for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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


Airborne reconnaissance--low

    The budget request contained $52.3 million for the airborne 
reconnaissance--low (ARL) program.
    The committee recognizes the importance of the ARL program 
and is committed to the replacement of this legacy platform 
through the aerial common sensor program. However, the 
committee notes that justification materials provided to the 
committee do not adequately explain how requested funding will 
be executed in fiscal year 2008 and do not explain the 
significant cost growth compared to fiscal year 2007.
    The committee recommends $42.3 million, a decrease of $10.0 
million, for the ARL program.

Armed reconnaissance helicopter

    The budget request contained $468.3 million in procurement; 
$82.3 million in research and development, PE 64220A, titled 
Armed, Deployable OH-58D; and $222.2 million for procurement in 
the fiscal year 2008 request for ongoing military operations 
for the armed reconnaissance helicopter (ARH). The budget also 
contained $20.8 million for OH-58 modifications, the aircraft 
the ARH is intended to replace.
    ARH low-rate initial production was to have begun in 
December 2006. The committee notes that the Army ARH program 
issued a stop work order on the program on March 21, 2007, and 
discussions continue between the contractor and senior 
acquisition officials of the Army, while the contractor 
continues work at its own risk. One of the four test aircraft 
has crashed. Current estimates are for procurement unit cost 
growth to double from original estimates of approximately $5.2 
million per aircraft to well over $10.0 million per aircraft. 
The schedule is currently estimated to slip one year.
    The committee recommends that the Army terminate this 
program and initiate a new source selection for the procurement 
of an ARH. The committee also recommends that the Army consider 
minor modification of its key performance parameters, to allow 
more competitors to compete for this program.
    The committee recommends no funds for procurement of ARH; 
$50.0 million, a decrease of $32.3 million, in PE 64220A for 
ARH; and 51.8 million, an increase of $31.0 million, for 
additional OH-58 modifications. The committee recommends no 
funds in title XV of this Act for ARH.

UH-60A to UH-60L helicopter upgrade

    The budget request contained $13.0 million to procure and 
field the crashworthy external fuel system safety modification 
for UH-60 helicopters, but the request did not contain funds 
for replacement of UH-60A engine transmissions and engine 
upgrades as part of the UH-60A upgrade program.
    The committee notes the prior year funding to complete the 
non-recurring engineering for a UH-60A to UH-60L upgrade, which 
would primarily apply to Army National Guard helicopters, 
resulting in significantly increased reliability, reduction in 
operating costs, and increased capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 
the upgrade of UH-60As to the UH-60L configuration.

                       Missile Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $2.1 
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $2.1 billion, an increase of $11.8 million, 
for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Patriot PAC-3 missiles

    The budget request contained $472.9 million for the 
procurement of Patriot PAC-3 missiles, a combat-proven missile 
defense system designed to defend against short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles. Based on testimony of combatant 
commanders over the past several years, the committee believes 
that more Patriot PAC-3 missiles are required.
    The committee recommends $484.7 million, an increase of 
$11.8 million, to procure four additional Patriot PAC-3 
missiles.

Patriot modifications and pure fleet upgrade

    The budget request contained $569.9 million for 
modifications to the Patriot weapons system.
    The committee supports the Army's decision to complete the 
upgrade of the remaining PAC-2 firing units to PAC-3 
configuration and its decision to begin the procurement of 
equipment for two additional Patriot battalions. The committee 
notes that this decision will provide the warfighter an 
enhanced capability to meet the near-term ballistic missile 
threats to our deployed forces and our allies.
    The committee recommends $569.9 million for modifications 
to the Patriot weapons system, the amount of the budget 
request.

Tube-launched optically-tracked wire-guided missile

    The committee recognizes the increasing requirement for TOW 
missiles; as well as the significant challenges the Army and 
Marine Corps face in maintaining an adequate inventory. To 
sustain the industrial base, the minimum sustained production 
rate has been raised to 2,255 missiles per-year. The committee 
is concerned that while the Army has chosen to request funding 
to fulfill this requirement in fiscal year 2008, the fiscal 
year 2009 projected Army budget contains a request for only 
1,586 missiles. The projected Marine Corps budget request for 
fiscal year 2009 will not contain procurement of any TOW 
missiles. Therefore, the total buy will be below the minimum 
sustained rate of production and would force a substantial 
increase in the price per missile. The committee also 
recognizes that in-theater there is an overwhelming requirement 
for the TOW ``bunker buster'' (BB) variant in theater. The 
Army's current acquisition strategy is to procure approximately 
three times more TOW anti-armor (2B AERO) variants than TOW BB 
variants.
    The committee strongly encourages the Army to reconsider 
their acquisition strategy to maintain the minimum sustained 
rate of production. The committee recommends that the Army 
consider realigning the quantity of TOW BB missiles to be 
procured to reflect the current demand of these missiles by 
deployed forces.

               Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $3.2 
billion for Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The 
committee recommends authorization of $3.3 billion, an increase 
of $73.9 million, for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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 total integrated engine revitalization program strategy

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the 
committee raised concerns regarding the Army's M1 Abrams tank 
modernization program and associated funding. The total 
integrated engine revitalization (TIGER) program for the M1 
Abrams tank is an integrated engine maintenance program that 
increases the service life of M1 Abrams tank engines from 700 
to 1,400 hours. The committee strongly encourages both the 
Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau to develop and fund a plan that modernizes the entire 
Abrams engine tank fleet with TIGER engines by 2010.

Abrams tank multiyear procurement authority

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the 
committee encouraged the Army to examine the possibility of a 
multiyear procurement contract for M1 Abrams tanks based on the 
large number of upgraded M1 Abrams tanks the Army plans to 
procure. The committee strongly supports the Army's efforts to 
upgrade its fleet of M1 Abrams tanks with the latest technology 
and believes that the potential savings from a multiyear 
procurement contract could prove substantial.
    While the committee is pleased that the Army requested 
multiyear authority starting in fiscal year 2008 for the M1A2 
system enhancement package (SEP) Abrams tank upgrade program, 
it is extremely disappointed that the Army chose to place the 
funding for the fiscal year 2008 allocation of the contract in 
the fiscal year 2008 funding request for ongoing military 
operations. The committee believes a multiyear contract should 
not be contained in an emergency request since it requires 
planning and contracting for procurement four to five years in 
the future. The committee provided the requested multiyear 
procurement authority in section 111 of this Act; however, the 
committee strongly encourages the Army to place funding for the 
multiyear procurement of M1A2 SEP Abrams tanks in the 
President's base budget request for fiscal year 2009.

Army National Guard Stryker vehicles

    The committee recognizes the possible utility of equipping 
additional Army National Guard (ARNG) units with Stryker 
vehicles. The committee understands that Stryker forces have 
proven their utility and effectiveness in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom (OIF) during their constant deployment to OIF since 
2003. The committee recognizes that the combat and homeland 
security capability of Stryker vehicles could also increase the 
ARNG's ability to meet future mission requirements. However, 
the committee also believes that pursuing additional Stryker 
units for the ARNG may entail substantial costs for increased 
procurement, logistics support, military construction, and 
training, and that these costs have not been fully analyzed by 
the Army. Additionally, the committee is concerned that 
pursuing additional Stryker vehicles for the ARNG may compete 
with funding needed to address more basic, and longstanding, 
equipment shortfalls in the ARNG for modern wheeled vehicles, 
communications systems, tracked combat vehicles, and many other 
classes of equipment. Finally, the committee notes that $1.1 
billion in additional funding was provided for National Guard 
equipment in title I of this Act, and that the ARNG could use 
that funding to procure Stryker vehicles.
    The committee directs the Army to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees that analyzes the potential 
utility, in terms of both combat and domestic emergency 
response capability, of equipping additional ARNG units with 
Stryker vehicles. The report shall include the comments of the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau on each of the items 
described below. This analysis shall include a range of options 
for equipping ARNG units including, but not limited to, 
converting ARNG infantry brigades to Stryker brigades and 
creating hybrid ARNG brigades that are partially equipped with 
Stryker vehicles. The report shall also include estimates for 
the cost of the various alternatives compared to baseline 
funding projections for ARNG equipment modernization, logistics 
support, military construction, training, and other relevant 
cost factors. The Army shall provide this report to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2008.

Bradley fighting vehicle multiyear procurement authority

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the 
committee encouraged the Army to examine the possibility of a 
multiyear procurement contract for M2 Bradley fighting vehicles 
(BFVs) based on the large number of upgraded M2 BFVs the Army 
plans to procure. The committee strongly supports the Army's 
efforts to upgrade its fleet of M2 BFVs with the latest 
technology and believes that the potential savings from a 
multiyear procurement contract could prove substantial.
    While the committee is pleased that the Army requested 
multiyear authority starting in fiscal year 2008 for M2 BFV 
procurement, it is extremely disappointed that the Army chose 
to place the funding for the fiscal year 2008 allocation of the 
contract in the fiscal year 2008 funding request for ongoing 
military operations. The committee believes a multiyear 
contract should not be contained in an emergency request since 
it requires planning and contracting for procurement four to 
five years in the future. The committee provided the requested 
multiyear procurement authority in section 112 of this Act; 
however, the committee strongly encourages the Army to place 
funding for the multiyear procurement of M2 BFVs in the 
President's base budget request for fiscal year 2009.

Future Combat Systems procurement lines structure

    The budget request contained $99.6 million for Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) procurement.
    The funding was requested in two lines. These lines were 
``Future Combat Systems (FCS)'' for $79.5 million and ``FCS 
Spin Outs'' for $20.1 million. The committee notes that the 
requested amounts will procure a wide array of FCS equipment 
including computers, unmanned ground vehicles, unattended 
sensors, and other non-vehicular equipment that the Army 
normally includes in other parts of the budget request. The 
committee is concerned that requesting future funding in this 
manner will make congressional oversight more difficult and 
create execution challenges for the Army.
    The committee recommends $99.6 million, the amount of the 
budget request, for FCS procurement in fiscal year 2008. 
However, the committee urges the Army to consider spreading 
future FCS procurement requests across multiple, and more 
specific, procurement budget lines beginning with the fiscal 
year 2009 budget request.

Stryker vehicle program adjustment

    The budget request contained $1.0 billion for Stryker 
vehicles and upgrades, containing $456.3 million for the 
procurement of 87 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) variants.
    The committee notes that the request for Stryker MGS 
vehicles was based upon conduct of an operational test and 
evaluation event in the first quarter of fiscal year 2007 and a 
Milestone C full-rate production decision in the second quarter 
of fiscal year 2007. However, the committee notes that both of 
these events, which are required for full-rate production, will 
be delayed a minimum of six months and possibly as long as ten 
months. The committee also notes that the Army has an unfunded 
requirement for $775.1 million for procurement of other 
variants of the Stryker vehicle and upgrades in fiscal year 
2008.
    The committee recommends $1.1 billion, an increase of $65.9 
million, for Stryker vehicle procurement in fiscal year 2008. 
The committee recommends that the Army fund production of only 
43 Stryker MGS vehicles in fiscal year 2008 and use the 
remaining funds and the additional $65.9 million provided by 
the committee to procure, at a minimum, the following items 
from the Army's unfunded requirement for Stryker vehicles: 42 
Stryker ambulances, 36 Stryker vehicles in anticipation of 
battle losses, driver protection upgrades, and additional 
Stryker vehicle armor.

Stryker mobile gun system deployment plan

    The committee is concerned that the Army plans to deploy 
low-rate initial production versions of the Stryker MGS vehicle 
to Operation Iraqi Freedom prior to completion of operational 
testing and live-fire test and evaluation. The Subcommittee on 
Air and Land Forces received testimony on March 27, 2007, from 
the Army that problems experienced during developmental testing 
have been addressed to a degree acceptable to field commanders 
for combat operations. The committee understands the urgency of 
deploying all available combat systems requested by field 
commanders; however, the committee urges the Army to complete 
the required operational and live-fire testing as early as 
possible and to make any necessary modifications to deployed 
vehicles.

                      Ammunition Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $2.2 
billion for Ammunition Procurement, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $2.2 billion, an increase of $47.6 
million, for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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


Excalibur extended range artillery projectile

    The budget request contained $28.8 million for the 
Excalibur XM982 precision guided extended range artillery 
projectile.
    The committee is aware the Excalibur XM982 projectile is 
proceeding into early production to support an urgent fielding 
requirement in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee 
understands the Excalibur XM982 would potentially reduce 
collateral damage in urban environments and serve as a 
significant combat multiplier to military personnel.
    The committee recommends $49.9 million, an increase of 
$21.1 million, for the rapid fielding of the Excalibur XM982 
precision guided extended range artillery projectile.

                        Other Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $11.9 
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $11.5 billion, a decrease of $394.8 million, 
for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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


Automatic identification technology for Army depots

    The budget request contained no funds for commercial, off 
the shelf, automatic identification, and data collection 
solutions for Army depots.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for 
the Army Product Manager, Joint Automatic Identification 
Technology Office to continue improvements to the repair and 
rebuilding processes for combat vehicles and equipment at 
Anniston Army Depot and Red River Army Depot through 
integration of commercial, off the shelf, automatic 
identification technology, automated data collection, and work 
flow management solutions.

Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below

    The budget request contained $250.1 million for the 
procurement of 7,659 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below 
(FBCB2) systems. In addition, the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request for ongoing military operations contained $374.0 
million for 4,820 FBCB2 systems.
    The committee supports continued fielding of the FBCB2 
system. However, the committee notes that the Army received 
$159.7 million for 4,434 FBCB2 systems in fiscal year 2007 and 
that production capacity for this system is limited.
    The committee recommends $187.6 million, a decrease of 
$62.5 million, for FBCB2 systems in title I of this Act. The 
committee notes that additional funding for FBCB2 systems is 
authorized in title XV of this Act.

Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control

    The budget request contained $9.0 million for Forward Area 
Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2) systems. In addition, 
the fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $21.5 million for FAAD C2 systems.
    The committee notes that the Army received $228.6 million 
for FAAD C2 systems in fiscal year 2006 and an additional $21.0 
million in fiscal year 2007. The committee also notes that 
production capacity for FAAD C2 equipment is limited.
    The committee recommends no funding for FAAD C2, a decrease 
of $9.0 million, in title I of this Act. The committee notes 
that additional funding for FAAD C2 systems is recommended in 
title XV of this Act.

Future Unmanned Aerial Vehicle threat to Army forces

    The committee is concerned that current Army air defense 
capabilities may not be appropriate given the evolving threat 
to Army forces posed by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). The 
committee directs the Army to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by January 15, 2008, which 
shall include an analysis of the current and future UAV threat 
to deployed Army forces and the Army's plan, with regard to air 
defense systems and force structure, to address current and 
future UAV threats. In the report, the Army shall take into 
account the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board report titled 
``Report on Air Defense Against Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,'' 
dated August 1, 2006, and ongoing joint staff and service 
studies and analyses on joint integrated air and missile 
defense. The report shall include an unclassified summary.

Individual soldier survivability equipment budget line item

    The committee recognizes the majority of funding for 
individual soldier survivability equipment, such as body armor, 
is contained in the fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing 
military operations, specifically within Operation and 
Maintenance budget activities.
    The committee feels long range planning, programming, and 
budgeting, as part of a stabilized long-term acquisition 
strategy, would produce a cost-effective and efficient method 
for the manufacturing and fielding of individual soldier 
survivability equipment, such as body armor and associated 
components.
    Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Department 
of the Army to establish a funding budget line item in the 
Other Procurement, Army budget account for individual soldier 
survivability equipment such as body armor and associated 
components.

Joint Network Node

    The budget request contained $372.4 million for the 
procurement of Joint Network Node (JNN) equipment. In addition, 
the fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $2.2 billion for JNN equipment.
    The committee expressed concern regarding the lack of 
coordination and potential capability overlap between the 
Warfighter Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T) program and 
the JNN program in section 114 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) and required a report from the Department of the Army on 
its future battlefield network equipment modernization plan. 
The required report describes a plan to procure JNN for the 
entire Army while also spending significant research and 
development funding to continue work on WIN-T. While the 
committee supports the Army's goal to improve its battlefield 
networking capability, the committee remains concerned that the 
JNN program continues to procure equipment outside of normal 
Department of Defense procedures that provide for testing and 
competition.
    The committee recommends $344.9 million, a decrease of 
$27.5 million, for JNN equipment in title I of this Act. The 
committee notes that additional funding for JNN equipment is 
authorized in title XV of this Act.

Maneuver Control System

    The budget request contained $122.5 million for Maneuver 
Control System (MCS) equipment and support services. In 
addition, the fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing 
military operations contained $57.9 million for MCS equipment 
and support services.
    The committee notes that the MCS program received $76.7 
million in fiscal year 2007 and that the Army's production 
capacity for MCS equipment is limited.
    The committee recommends $80.5 million, a decrease of $42.0 
million, for MCS equipment in title I of this Act. The 
committee notes that additional funding for MCS equipment is 
authorized in title XV of this Act.

Mine protection vehicle family

    The budget request contained $199.1 million for the mine 
protection vehicle family, of which $66.0 million would procure 
approximately 82 medium mine protected vehicles (MMPV).
    The committee believes the mine resistant ambush protected 
(MRAP) category 2 vehicle could potentially fulfill the 
requirement for a medium mine protected vehicle. Furthermore, 
the committee notes current Army budget justification materials 
indicate that funding is provided for the medium mine protected 
vehicle program elsewhere in the Army Procurement budget 
activities. The committee is aware the budget request for the 
MMPV is for a potential contract award and the committee notes 
vehicles would not be delivered until the second quarter of 
fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends realigning $66.0 million from the 
mine protection vehicle family to the budget request for 
ongoing military operations in order to address the Chief of 
Staff of the Army urgent unfunded MRAP vehicle requirements.

Nonsystems training devices

    The budget request contained $201.8 million to procure 
nonsystem training devices, but contained no funds to modernize 
the Combat Arms Training System (CATS) for the Army National 
Guard (ARNG); to procure the Call for Fire Trainer Iteration 
II/Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System (JFETS); to procure 
the Virtual Interactive Combat Environment (VICE) System for 
the ARNG; to procure combat skills training simulation systems 
for the ARNG; or to procure the Homestation Instrumentation 
Training System (HITS) Air and Missile Defense Instrumentation 
Training System.
    The committee notes that each of these systems provides 
needed training for non-deployed and ``next to deploy'' 
military personnel involved in ongoing operations throughout 
the world. The committee understands CATS requires 
modernization to move from analog to digital technology. The 
committee notes the JFETS has already trained almost 4,000 
soldiers and has proved to be a useful tool for soldiers 
preparing to deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of 
responsibility. The committee understands there is an emphasis 
to train military personnel in urban operations and asymmetric 
tactical situations similar to those being experienced by 
soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee notes the 
VICE could provide such capability at relative low cost and 
would allow ARNG units to be effectively trained in these type 
situations. The committee is aware the Ohio National Guard has 
critical requirements for combat skills training systems in 
order to ensure combat effective readiness and proficiency 
before deployments. The committee understands current HITS 
require improvements and enhancements to instrumentation in 
order to better provide full spectrum training capability for 
air and missile defense units.
    The committee recommends $6.0 million for CATS for the 
ARNG, $5.0 million for the JFETS, $4.0 million for the VICE, 
$0.8 million for combat skills training systems for the ARNG, 
and $2.9 million for improvements to current HITS; an increase 
of $18.7 million for nonsystem training devices.

Profiler system

    The budget request contained $10.8 million for profiler 
systems. In addition, the fiscal year 2008 budget request for 
ongoing military operations contained $64.8 million for 
profiler systems.
    The committee notes that in fiscal year 2006 the Army 
received $125.0 million for profiler systems and an additional 
$8.6 million in fiscal year 2007, but that the Army's 
production capacity for this system is limited.
    The committee recommends $2.8 million, a decrease of $8.0 
million, for profiler systems in Title I of this Act. The 
committee notes that additional funding for profiler systems is 
authorized in Title XV of this Act.

Radio, improved high-frequency family

    The budget request contained $81.4 million for radio, 
improved high-frequency family systems. In addition, the fiscal 
year 2008 budget request for ongoing military operations 
contained $433.4 million for radio, improved high frequency 
family systems.
    The committee notes that during fiscal years 2006 and 2007 
that the Army received funding to procure more than 36,000 
improved high-frequency radios. However, the fiscal year 2008 
request is based upon a unit cost per radio that is either flat 
or has increased compared to fiscal year 2007. The committee is 
aware that the Army plans to continue to procure thousands of 
additional radio, improved high-frequency family systems, and 
urges the Army to negotiate a lower unit cost per system with 
manufactures or conduct a new competitive bid process for 
future purchases of radio, improved high-frequency family 
systems.
    The committee recommends $61.0 million, a decrease of $20.4 
million, for radio, improved high-frequency family systems. The 
committee notes that additional funding for radio, improved 
high-frequency family systems is authorized in title XV of this 
Act.

Shadow unmanned aerial systems

    The budget request contained $70.2 million and the fiscal 
year 2008 request for ongoing military operations contained 
$176.5 million for Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle systems 
(UAS).
    The justification materials provided by the Department of 
the Army for the fiscal year 2008 request priced the cost of a 
Shadow UAS system at $11.7 million per system, while the fiscal 
year 2008 request for ongoing military operations priced the 
cost of a system at $8.9 million per system.
    The committee recommends $64.4 million, a decrease of $5.8 
million, for Shadow UAS.

Simulated expandable combat training capability for Army National Guard

    The budget request contained $16.3 million for Combat 
Training Centers support and other associated costs, but 
contained no funds for simulated combat training capability 
systems for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
    The committee understands this system would provide 
effective simulated pre-mobilization and post-mobilization 
home-station training for ARNG units participating in the 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Operation Enduring Freedom. The 
committee recognizes that although there is no substitute for 
the robust live-fire and simulated training capabilities 
provided at Combat Training Centers (CTCs) and through the 
Joint National Training Capability (JNTC), this particular 
system would supplement CTC and JNTC activities, as well as 
provide additional training opportunities for ARNG units at 
their home stations who are preparing to deploy. Furthermore, 
the committee believes that this additional simulated training 
capability would potentially contribute to more effective CTC 
and JNTC training exercises for ARNG units.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million to 
provide simulated, flexible and expandable combat training 
capability to ARNG ``next to deploy'' units.

Tactical Operations Centers

    The budget request contained $393.9 million for Tactical 
Operations Centers (TOCs) equipment. In addition, the budget 
request for ongoing military operations contained $263.7 
million for TOCs equipment.
    The committee notes that the Army TOC program provides a 
capability similar to several other DOD programs, including the 
Navy Deployable Joint Command and Control (DJC2) and U.S. 
Marine Corps Combat Operations Center (COC) programs. The 
committee also notes that the Army received $57.5 million in 
fiscal year 2007 for the TOCs program.
    The committee recommends $196.9 million, a decrease of 
$196.9 million, for TOCs equipment. The committee urges the 
Army to coordinate with the Navy and Marine Corps to procure, 
where possible, common command post equipment in order to 
reduce the unit cost of each system and to improve 
interoperability. The committee notes that additional funding 
for TOCs equipment is authorized in title XV of this Act.

Tactical wheeled vehicle armor classification levels

    The committee is aware that efforts to quickly armor 
tactical wheeled vehicles resulted in three basic methods of 
installing vehicle armor: armor integrated into the vehicle on 
the assembly line; armor added as a Department-approved kit 
specifically designed for a particular vehicle; and armor added 
in the field. These three methods of armor installation were 
designated Levels I, II, and III, respectively. Although these 
levels only refer to the method of armor installation, they are 
generally viewed as defining the level of crew protection. 
After careful review of all the tactical vehicles and their 
true armor protection level, the committee found that the 
levels as currently defined do not necessarily indicate the 
level of protection.
    The committee is aware the Department of Defense is 
developing new armor protection definitions and expects to 
complete them by 2007. The committee strongly encourages the 
development of new definitions for armor protection levels 
based on actual protection provided versus installation method. 
The committee expects the Department to make this a top 
priority and encourages the Department to expedite this process 
so that commanders and their troops understand the true level 
of protection offered by a myriad of armor configurations 
present in the current force.

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $500.0 
million for Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. The 
committee recommends authorization at the request level of 
$500.0 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund program are 
identified in the table below. Major changes to the Army 
request are discussed following the table. 


                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $12.7 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $12.7 billion, an increase of $3.0 
million, for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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


Conventional Trident Modification

    The budget request contained $175.4 million for the 
Conventional Trident Modification, containing $36.0 million 
within Weapons Procurement, Navy, $13.0 million within Other 
Procurement, Navy, and $126.4 million within Research 
Development Test and Evaluation, Navy.
    The committee believes it is necessary for the United 
States to be able to respond to a range of potential threats 
with a prompt conventional global strike capability. The 
committee recognizes that converting selected missiles of the 
trident strategic nuclear deterrence arsenal to carry 
conventional payloads is the most technically mature and cost 
effective way to achieve that capability.
    As required by section 219 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, submitted a report that addresses concerns 
identified by Congress about the concept of operations 
associated with the Conventional Trident Modification program 
including the possibility of misinterpretation of a launch 
event from a submarine by both allies and potential 
adversaries. The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense 
assesses the risk of misinterpretation to be ``extremely low.'' 
However, the committee is also aware that a National Academy of 
Sciences study has been initiated to further analyze the 
Conventional Trident's mission requirement. The committee would 
like to ensure that significant study recommendations, risk 
mitigation strategies, and strategic policy considerations 
receive due consideration concurrently with development and 
testing of the system and prior to operationally fielding the 
system. Therefore, for fiscal year 2008, the committee supports 
continued research, development, test and evaluation for the 
Conventional Trident Modification program. However, the 
committee includes a provision, section 124 of this Act, that 
would prevent fiscal year 2008 funds from being obligated or 
expended for operational deployment of the system. Further, 
this section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit written notification to the congressional defense 
committees at such time as the Secretary determines that the 
system is fully functional and fielding is necessary to meet 
military requirements.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $26.0 million within 
Weapons Procurement, Navy, and a decrease of $7.0 million 
within Other Procurement, Navy, for funds associated with long-
lead procurement for the Conventional Trident Modification.

              Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $1.1 
billion for Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps. The 
committee recommends authorization at the budget request level 
of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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.


                       Items of Special Interest


Littoral Combat Ship

    The budget request contained $910.5 million for the 
construction of three Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The LCS is 
designed to counter asymmetric threats in the littoral waters 
of the world's oceans with an interchangeable system of 
capabilities; anti-submarine, anti-mine, and anti-surface 
warfare.
    The committee notes with concern the significant cost 
growth experienced within the LCS program, which has recently 
led to a termination of a contract option to construct the 
third ship of the class. In testimony before the Subcommittee 
on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces on February 8, 2007, Navy 
and industry witnesses agreed that the original ship 
construction schedule for the lead ship was overly aggressive 
and that Navy and industry program managers sought to maintain 
schedule performance, rather than cost performance, to the 
detriment of cost-effective construction. The witnesses also 
agreed that additional major cost drivers on the lead ship were 
caused by the inclusion of the new naval vessel rules into the 
design of the ship without a pause in the construction 
schedule. Additionally, a necessary component for the 
propulsion system arrived late to the construction yard 
changing the most efficient construction sequence for the 
vessel.
    The committee commends the Secretary of the Navy for taking 
action to identify the issues discussed above; however the 
committee remains concerned that recent Navy decisions to 
terminate the option for the third ship may eliminate the 
benefit of a competitive environment for this program.
    The proposed 55 ship class represents a significant portion 
of the Chief of Naval Operations plan for a 313 ship Navy. If 
the Secretary cannot maintain affordability in this vital 
program, the 313 ship fleet cannot be realized. The committee 
believes it is imperative that the Navy pursue all reasonable 
means to control costs in the LCS program. The committee 
believes that a key component of cost control is competition. 
The committee strongly encourages the Navy to avoid defaulting 
to a single design acquisition strategy for fiscal years 2008 
and 2009 and expects the Navy to take all reasonable steps 
necessary to ensure continued competition between the two LCS 
designs.
    The committee is convinced that the capability that this 
vessel will bring to the Navy is of the utmost urgency for 
responding to asymmetric threats. The committee understands 
that in order to cover the cost increases of the first three 
ships, the Secretary intends to submit to Congress an above 
threshold reprogramming requesting for the appropriations for 
the two ships authorized in fiscal year 2007. Further, the 
Secretary has communicated a request that the committee only 
authorize two of the three ships submitted in the budget for 
fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $710.5 million, a decrease of 
$200.0 million from the budget request, for the construction of 
two ships in fiscal year 2008.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by August 1, 
2007, on the analysis of the root causes of the LCS cost 
overruns; the methods and procedures put in place throughout 
the various Program Executive Offices ensuring these mistakes 
are not repeated in other programs; the structure of the Navy's 
current contractual agreements with both LCS prime contractors 
along with justification for differences between the two, if 
any; an explanation of the Navy's plan for testing of the two 
different ship variants; and an analysis of alternatives for 
future procurement and deployment of the LCS.

Premature retirement of Navy vessels

    The committee remains concerned that vessels of the U.S. 
Navy are being retired prior to the end of useful service life. 
The committee understands that over the past two decades a 
significant percentage of the capital ships of the Navy have 
been retired based on cost avoidance decisions for 
modernization of surface combatants or refueling of submarines.
    The committee notes that those decisions have resulted in a 
current fleet of less than 280 capital ships. The committee 
strongly believes that future Navy ship classes should be 
designed and constructed to allow for cost effective upgrades 
to the ships sensors, communications, and weapons systems as 
new technologies become available.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 
2007, detailing the vessels that the Navy expects to retire 
between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2012, which will not 
have reached the end of useful service life. This report shall 
specify why it is in the best interest of the nation to retire 
any such vessel prior to the end of its useful service life. 
For the purposes of this report, ``useful service life'' shall 
be defined as the projected hull life of the ship class. 
Additionally, this report shall include the Navy's strategy for 
future design and construction to ensure that capital ships can 
be upgraded economically, and are not retired prematurely.

San Antonio Class (LPD)

    The budget request contained $1.4 billion for procurement 
of the ninth and final ship of the San Antonio class LPD.
    The committee understands that a tenth ship is the top 
priority on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priority 
list. The committee recognizes that authorizing a tenth ship of 
this class would allow the Marine Corps to more fully meet its 
requirement for amphibious assault.
    The committee recommends $1.4 billion for the ship 
contained in the budget request and recommends an increase of 
$1.7 billion, to include advance procurement, for the 
construction of an additional San Antonio class amphibious 
assault ship.

Virginia Class Submarine Advance Procurement

    The budget request contained $702.7 million for advance 
procurement of Virginia class submarine construction. The 
committee understands that the procurement of an additional 
ship-set of reactor plant components and main propulsion 
components reduces risk of construction delay and provides 
savings in the form of increased production orders. 
Additionally, the committee understands that additional funding 
allows the shipbuilders to prefabricate major components 
reducing the overall time of construction.
    The committee is aware of the Navy requirement for a force 
of 48 fast attack submarines, and that the Navy will fall short 
of that number after the year 2020 under the current 
shipbuilding plan. The committee is committed to increasing the 
procurement of Virginia class submarines to two per year prior 
to the Navy's current plan of increased procurement in fiscal 
year 2012. The addition of advance procurement for construction 
of long-lead items such as reactor plant and main propulsion 
components allows the committee the flexibility to increase the 
procurement rate of submarines in the coming years.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $588.0 
million for the procurement of an additional ship-set of 
reactor plant, main propulsion, and prefabrication of Virginia 
class components.

                        Other Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $5.5 
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $5.4 billion, a decrease of $26.8 million, for 
fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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


CVN Propeller Replacement Program

    The budget request contained $186.0 million in the category 
of items under $5.0 million, but contained no funds for the 
aircraft carrier propeller replacement program.
    The committee understands that the original propellers on 
the Nimitz class aircraft carriers suffer from significant 
blade erosion caused by cavitation and require refurbishment 
every three to six years. The new design propeller is resistant 
to erosion by cavitation and only requires refurbishment every 
12 years which most closely approximates major dry-docking 
availability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million in the 
category, items less than $5.0 million, for the aircraft 
carrier propeller replacement program.

DDG 51 modernization program

    The budget request contained $14.5 million for procurement 
of the highly capable, multi-role AN/SPQ-9B radar.
    The committee understands the Navy plans to deploy the AN/
SPQ-9B radar during the modernization of the DDG 51 class 
destroyers and to deploy the radar on the LPD 17, LHD 8, and 
CVN 78 ship classes.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for 
accelerated radar system procurement to reduce risks and meet 
the delivery requirements for the first DDG 51 modernization.

Envelop protective covers for naval applications

    The budget request contained $11.6 million in operating 
forces support equipment, but contained no funds for the 
procurement of envelop protective covers.
    The committee understands that these covers are currently 
in use on 160 Navy ships and have significantly reduced 
corrosion caused by the shipboard environment, thereby 
decreasing maintenance and increasing readiness.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in 
operating support equipment for the procurement of envelop 
protective covers.

LSD 41 class 60 ton crane upgrades

    The budget request contained $186.0 million for items under 
$5.0 million, but contained no funds for upgrading the crane 
controls and drives for the four ships of the LSD 41 class.
    The committee understands that the 60 ton cranes on the 
ships of the LSD 41 class are essential to the safe loading and 
off loading of Marine Corps heavy equipment. The committee 
further understands that the control systems and drives on 
these cranes are of an outdated technical design, require 
continuous maintenance, and are no longer fully supported for 
spares.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 
items less than $5.0 million for the replacement of the control 
systems and drives for LSD 42, 44, 47, and 48.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $2.7 
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends 
authorization of $2.6 billion, a decrease of $118.8 million, 
for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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 Operations Centers

    The budget request contained $56.9 million for Combat 
Operations Center (COC) equipment. In addition, the fiscal year 
2008 budget request for ongoing military operations contained 
$92.4 million for COC equipment.
    The committee notes that the Marine Corps COC program 
provides a capability similar to other Department of Defense 
programs, including the Navy Deployable Joint Command and 
Control (DJC2) and Army Tactical Operations Center (TOC) 
programs. The committee also notes that the Marine Corps 
received $275.0 million in fiscal year 2007 for the COC program 
and that the Marine Corps production capacity for this 
equipment is limited. The committee urges the Marine Corps to 
coordinate with the Departments of the Navy and Army to 
procure, where possible, common command post equipment in order 
to reduce the unit cost of each system and to improve 
interoperability.
    The committee recommends $28.5 million, a decrease of $28.4 
million, for COC equipment. The committee notes that additional 
funding for the COC program is authorized in Title XV of this 
Act.

Radio systems

    The budget request contained $179.9 million for procurement 
of Marine Corps radio systems. In addition, the fiscal year 
2008 budget request for ongoing military operations contained 
$464.5 million for procurement of radio systems.
    The committee notes that the Marine Corps received $876.5 
million in fiscal year 2007 for the procurement of radios that, 
in addition to the recommended fiscal year 2008 funding, will 
allow the Marine Corps to meet the communications needs for 
deploying units in 2008. The committee is concerned that 
despite the dramatic increase in the number of radios planned 
for procurement that the individual unit cost of these radios 
has remained flat or has increased. The committee strongly 
encourages the Marine Corps to negotiate a lower unit price for 
these radio systems. The committee urges the Marine Corps to 
conduct a competitive process to procure radios that provide 
similar capability at a lower unit cost, if a lower price with 
the current manufacturers of the radios is not achievable.
    The committee recommends $90.5 million, a decrease of $90.4 
million, for procurement of Marine Corps radio systems. The 
committee notes that additional funding for radio systems is 
authorized in Title XV of this Act.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $12.4 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $12.4 billion, a decrease of $37.0 
million, for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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


AC-130 large aircraft infrared countermeasures

    The budget request contained $384.4 million for C-130 
modifications, of which $26.9 million was for the procurement 
and installation of the large aircraft infra-red counter-
measures (LAIRCM) system on AC-130 aircraft.
    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 accelerated on the Department of the Air 
Force's AC-130 fleet. The committee notes that the Air Force 
Chief of Staff has included the AC-130 LAIRCM among his top ten 
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $389.4 million for C-130 
modifications, an increase of $5.0 million for procurement and 
installation of the LAIRCM system on AC-130 aircraft.

AN/ALQ-213 processor

    The budget request contained $683.1 million for other 
production charges, but contained no funds to complete 
qualification of an updated AN/ALQ-213 processor.
    The AN/ALQ-213 processor is an advanced electronic warfare 
management system, used on the F-16 and A-10 aircraft, which 
integrates all on-board self-protection systems such as missile 
warning systems, chaff and flare dispensing systems, jammers, 
and towed decoys to reduce pilot workload while conducting 
combat operations in enemy airspace. The committee understands 
that the limited processing and memory capacity of the existing 
AN/ALQ-213 processor impacts the survivability of the F-16 and 
A-10 fleets, and the committee believes that qualification of 
an updated AN/ALQ-213 processor should be completed. The 
committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has 
included the updated AN/ALQ-213 among his unfunded priorities 
for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $687.0 million, an increase of 
$3.9 million, for other production charges to complete 
qualification of an updated AN/ALQ-213 processor.

B-1 bomber modernization

    The budget request contained $53.1 million for in-service 
modification of B-1 aircraft.
    According to Air Force officials, the funding request for 
the B-1 fully integrated data-link (FIDL) modification will not 
be used as documented in the Air Force justification materials. 
The Air Force intends to use $18.9 million of these funds for a 
targeting pod modification unrelated to FIDL. FIDL development 
delays required the Air Force to delay the start of procurement 
beyond fiscal year 2008. Further, the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request for ongoing military operations contained $17.1 million 
for the targeting pod modification.
    The committee recommends $34.2 million, a decrease of $18.9 
million, for in-service modification of B-1 aircraft.

B-2 bomber modernization

    The budget request contained $316.1 million for in-service 
modification of B-2 aircraft.
    The committee understands that the radar antenna for the B-
2 radar modernization program is not meeting performance 
criteria and has delayed the delivery and installation of the 
six development radar units needed for flight-testing. The 
committee notes that data gathered from the testing of these 
six radar units was supposed to contribute to the completion of 
design activity, provide an aircrew training capability, and 
provide test information on reliability and maintainability to 
support the production decision. The fiscal year 2008 budget 
request contains procurement of eight radar units. The Air 
Force does not plan to install three of the eight radar units 
until fiscal year 2011. The committee notes that based on 
procurement lead times, delaying procurement of three units 
until fiscal year 2009 should allow the Air Force to meet the 
fiscal year 2011 installment schedule without impacting initial 
operational capabilities.
    The committee recommends $216.1 million, a decrease of 
$100.0 million, for in-service modification of B-2 aircraft due 
to radar modernization program delays.

B-52

    The budget request contained $18.1 million for in-service 
modification of 56 B-52 aircraft, but contained no funds for 
the 20 remaining B-52 aircraft in the Air Force aircraft 
inventory.
    The committee understands that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review directed the Air Force to reduce the B-52 force to 56 
aircraft and use the savings to fully modernize the remaining 
B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s to support global strike operations. The 
committee also understands that the current B-52 combat coded 
force structure of 44 is insufficient to meet combatant 
commander requirements for conventional long-range strike if 
there is a need to conduct near simultaneous operations in two 
major regional conflicts. The committee believes it is 
premature to retire any B-52 aircraft prior to a replacement 
long-range strike aircraft reaching initial operational 
capability status.
    Section 131 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
permits the Secretary of the Air Force to retire up to 18 B-52 
aircraft, but maintain no less than 44 combat coded B-52 
aircraft, beginning 45 days after the Secretary submits to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services a report prepared by the Institute for Defense 
Analyses on the amount and type of bomber force structure 
required to carry out the National Security Strategy of the 
United States. Section 131 also prohibits retirement of more 
than 18 B-52 aircraft until a long-range strike replacement 
aircraft with equal or greater capability has attained initial 
operational capability status or until January 1, 2018, 
whichever comes first.
    The committee understands that the Air Force plans to 
modernize and upgrade only 56 of the total 76 B-52 aircraft in 
the inventory. The committee strongly opposes a strategy to 
reduce capability in present day conventional long-range strike 
capability without a replacement platform. The replacement 
platform is not projected to achieve initial operational 
capability until well into the future.
    The committee recommends $38.1 million, an increase of 
$20.0 million, for in-service modification of 76 B-52 aircraft 
and recommends the Air Force to request the fiscal resources 
necessary to similarly modernize and upgrade 76 B-52 aircraft 
in future fiscal year budget requests.

C-5 small arms protective armor

    The budget request contained $332.0 million for 
modification of in-service C-5 aircraft, but contained no funds 
for C-5 small arms protective armor.
    The committee understands that intelligence threat 
reporting and aircraft incidents indicate an urgent need to 
equip the C-5 aircrew cockpit, liquid-oxygen bottle, and troop 
door with protective armor. Installation of armor protection 
will increase aircrew and aircraft survivability against the 
small arms fire threat and will meet a U.S. Central Command 
area of responsibility requirement that all aircraft operating 
in specified zones be outfitted with small arms protective 
armor.
    The committee recommends $336.7 million, an increase of 
$4.7 million, for equipping C-5 aircraft with small arms 
protective armor.

F-16 block 42 engine upgrades

    The budget request contained $329.4 million for F-16 
modifications, but contained no funds for F-16 block 42 F100-
PW-229 engine upgrades for the Air National Guard (ANG).
    The committee notes that, without an engine upgrade, the 
ANG's F-16 block 42 aircraft are underpowered compared to F-16 
block 40, block 50, and block 52 aircraft, reducing their 
combat effectiveness. The committee understands that 31 of the 
ANG's 48 F-16 block 42 aircraft have been upgraded with the 
F100-PW-229 engine; and notes that this engine upgrade provides 
a twenty percent thrust increase, and improved durability, 
reliability, survivability, and speed. The committee believes 
that the ANG's F-16 block 42 aircraft fleet should continue to 
be upgraded with the F100-PW-229 engine.
    The committee recommends $358.8 million for F-16 
modifications, an increase of $29.4 million, for four F100-PW-
229 engine upgrades for the ANG's F-16 block 42 fleet.

Joint cargo aircraft

    The budget request contained $42.4 million for Air Force 
development and procurement of the joint cargo aircraft and 
$163.4 million for Army development and procurement of the 
joint cargo aircraft.
    The committee understands that the Army initiated the 
future cargo aircraft program to fill an operational gap 
identified by the Army to support an organic, time-sensitive 
cargo mission that is not adequately being filled by any 
currently fielded system. The committee understands that the 
Air Force initiated its light cargo aircraft program to more 
efficiently execute the intra-theater airlift cargo mission and 
supplement its current portfolio of airlift aircraft. The 
committee notes that the Army and the Air Force signed a 
Memorandum of Understanding on June 16, 2006, regarding merging 
the two programs into a new program called the Joint Cargo 
Aircraft.
    The committee understands that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is 
currently conducting the Joint Intra-Theater Lift Capabilities 
Study and the Joint Intra-Theater Distribution Assessment. The 
committee understands that the Air Force is conducting a 
Functional Area Series Analysis, a Joint Cargo Aircraft 
Analysis of Alternatives, and the Air Mobility Command Mobility 
Roadmap. The committee understands that these studies are 
essential in identifying effective and efficient intra-theater 
airlift operations that should support all intra-theater 
airlift requirements of the military services.
    The committee is extremely concerned that progressing with 
development and procurement of an additional cargo aircraft 
program to support intra-theater airlift requirements within 
the Department of Defense without completion of the relevant 
studies will prohibit informed decision-making, could invoke 
unnecessary duplication of effort and expenditure of fiscal 
resources, and may infringe upon the separate roles, missions, 
and core capabilities of the military services.
    The committee included a provision (section 132) of this 
Act that would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force or the 
Secretary of the Army from obligating or expending authorized 
appropriations for the development or procurement of the Joint 
Cargo Aircraft until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense 
submits to the congressional defense committees the Air Force 
Air Mobility Command's Airlift Mobility Roadmap; the Department 
of Defense Intra-Theater Airlift Capabilities Study; the 
Department of Defense Joint Intra-Theater Distribution 
Assessment; the Joint Cargo Aircraft Functional Area Series 
Analysis; the Joint Cargo Aircraft Analysis of Alternatives; 
and the Secretary of Defense certifies that validated 
operational requirements exist to fill a Department of the 
Army, Department of the Air Force, Army National Guard, or Air 
National Guard capability gap or shortfall for intra-theater 
airlift with the Joint Cargo Aircraft.

KC-135R global air traffic management system

    The budget request contained $118.6 million for 
modification of in-service C-135 aircraft, containing $103.3 
million for the global air traffic management (GATM) system 
installation kit.
    The committee understands that the GATM upgrade is required 
for all KC-135 aircraft to operate unrestricted within 
transoceanic airspace allocations where reduced horizontal 
separations are implemented. Accelerating installation of GATM 
should ensure that KC-135 aircraft can meet all assigned 
missions.
    The committee recommends $128.5 million for modification of 
in-service C-135 aircraft, an increase of $9.9 million for 
procurement of six additional GATM kits.

Senior scout shelter

    The budget request contained $384.4 million for C-130 
modifications, containing $3.9 million for change orders to 
update three C-130 senior scout shelters, but contained no 
funds for procurement of a fourth mission shelter for the 
senior scout system.
    The senior scout system is a roll-on and roll-off suite of 
equipment, configured in a shelter system, and used on 
specially-configured C-130 aircraft to perform intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. The committee 
notes that senior scout systems have been deployed continuously 
since September 11, 2001, because of their exceptional ISR 
capabilities and small footprint. The committee believes that 
an additional senior scout mission shelter is needed to meet 
operational demands.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million for a 
fourth mission shelter for the senior scout system.

Strategic airlift aircraft

    The budget request contained $260.6 million for C-17 
aircraft procurement support items, but no funds were included 
for additional C-17 aircraft.
    The committee notes that the Commander, U.S. Transportation 
Command and the Commander, Air Mobility Command, both testified 
before the House Committee on Armed Services on March 2, 2006, 
that no more than 20 C-17s, in addition to the former program 
of record of 180 C-17s, are needed to meet both the inter-
theater and intra-theater airlift requirements, and provide a 
recapitalization solution for older C-17s being used at a 
higher than planned utilization rate. The Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force included $472.8 million for two C-17 aircraft and 
$280.0 million for C-17 production line shutdown funding on the 
Air Force's Unfunded Priority List submitted to the committee.
    Additionally, the committee received a briefing from Air 
Force officials which explained that the cost savings garnered 
from retiring 30 C-5A aircraft and procuring 30 C-17 aircraft 
could be roughly equivalent in cost and that pursuing this 
course of action could increase operational flexibility of 
combatant commanders and improve the overall strategic airlift 
mobility capability of the United States Transportation 
Command. However, the committee notes that in the business case 
analysis briefed to the committee pursuing this option, the Air 
Force could not use actual cost estimates for the C-5 
Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP), actual 
unit cost estimates for additional C-17 aircraft, actual costs 
for personnel or military construction, or actual flying hour 
costs because these were still under review by Air Force 
officials.
    Regardless of the Air Force position that there is near 
financial neutrality of retiring 30 C-5As and procuring 30 C-
17s, the committee is concerned that a minimum of 299 strategic 
airlift aircraft may not be sufficient to meet future airlift 
requirements and supports procurement of at least 10 additional 
C-17s beyond the 190 aircraft program of record given the 
dilapidated condition of the C-130E/H fleet of aircraft, the 
lack of well defined inter-theater and intra-theater airlift 
requirements for the Army's modularity and Future Combat 
Systems operational concepts, the personnel end strength 
increases of both the Army and Marine Corps, the increased use 
of the C-17 tasked for the intra-theater airlift mission, and 
the uncertainty associated with C-5 modernization testing and 
possible cost growth.
    The committee recommends $2.4 billion in title XV of this 
Act, an increase of $2.4 billion for procurement of 10 
additional C-17s. Additionally, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to apply the $37.3 million of 
shutdown costs in the budget request towards the procurement of 
these additional C-17s, and strongly encourages the Secretary 
to program out-year funding for additional C-17 aircraft in 
subsequent budget requests if the Air Force plans to pursue the 
option of retiring C-5A aircraft and procuring additional C-17 
aircraft.
    The committee also includes in a provision in Title I of 
this Act that would allow the Secretary of the Air Force to 
retire C-5A aircraft from the inventory and replace the 
capability with C-17 aircraft if the cost analysis performed is 
prudent in meeting strategic airlift requirements and does not 
significantly increase overall costs above those already 
planned in the out-years. Before C-5A retirement can commence, 
the Secretary must submit to the congressional defense 
committees a cost analysis that evaluates retiring C-5A 
aircraft and procuring C-17 aircraft versus performing the 
Avionics Modernization Program and RERP on C-5A aircraft is 
more prudent in meeting strategic airlift mobility 
requirements; submit certification that the Department can 
comply with the minimum strategic airlift inventory requirement 
of 299 aircraft by October 1, 2008, section 8062(g) of title 
10, United States Code; and, submit certification that 
operational risk will not significantly increase in meeting the 
National Military Strategy objectives by retiring C-5A aircraft 
and procuring additional C-17 aircraft. The committee 
understands that the Air Force should have a minimum of 299 
strategic airlift aircraft in the inventory with delivery of 
the 189th C-17 in June 2009.
    Consequently, the committee understands that no C-5A 
retirements will occur before the delivery of the 189th C-17. 
This should provide adequate time for the committee and the 
Secretary of the Air Force to both reconsider minimum airlift 
needs and to fully evaluate the operational efficiencies 
involved in replacing C-5A aircraft with C-17 aircraft. 
Additionally, the committee notes that after section 8062(g) of 
title 10, United States Code, was implemented with the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 
the C-17 delivery schedule changed due to additional C-17 
foreign military sales which could impact the Secretary of the 
Air Force complying with section 8062(g) of title 10, United 
States Code.

Study on procuring F-35 aircraft for Air National Guard units

    The committee notes that some Air National Guard (ANG) 
units currently equipped with F-16 and F-15 aircraft provide 
homeland defense by conducting combat air patrol missions for 
high-value areas of the United States. Further, the committee 
notes that the existing fleets of F-15 and F-16 aircraft are 
aging, and that the F-35 aircraft will eventually assume F-16 
missions when F-16s are retired.
    To address the prospect of continuing the homeland defense 
combat air patrol mission when fleets of F-16s and F-15s are 
retired, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 
in consultation with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, to conduct a study on the 
feasibility and desirability of procuring F-35 aircraft for 
those ANG units that are responsible for providing homeland 
defense combat air patrol missions for high-value areas of the 
United States. The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit a 
report with the results and conclusions of this study, 
including any other information that the Secretary considers 
appropriate, to the congressional defense committees by October 
1, 2008.

                   Ammunition Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $868.9 
million for Ammunition Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization at budget request level of $868.9 
million, for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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 2008 contained $5.1 
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $5.1 billion, an increase of $7.0 
million, for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
Missile 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


General information technology

    The budget request contained $113.3 million for general 
information technologies, but contained no funds for the 
science and engineering lab data integration (SELDI) program, 
or for information modernization for processing with advance 
coating technologies (IMPACT).
    The Air Force Material Command's science and engineering 
lab captures, analyzes, and disseminates lab test data to the 
Department of 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 
sensor to ensure the proper chemical composition of materials 
and equipment. The committee understands that the SELDI program 
has provided quantifiable benefits including cost avoidance of 
$10.0 million per year in spare parts configuration 
discrepancies, and elimination of unnecessary landing gear 
overhaul process operations at a savings of $3.6 million per 
year. In the committee report (H. Rept. 108-491) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and 
in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) accompanying the 
National Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the committee 
recommended increases for the SELDI program 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 $2.0 
million for this purpose.
    As a result of much more stringent permissible exposure 
limits to chemical byproducts of chrome plating processes, 
Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) will be required to 
migrate to a new process known as advanced coating systems. The 
committee understands that the advanced coating systems process 
will offer improved durability and lower life-cycle costs for 
those components treated with this process. The IMPACT program 
is working to calibrate, validate, and certify the existing 
thermal spray equipment used in the advanced coating systems 
process, and identifying candidate parts that could be 
overhauled with this process. To accelerate the IMPACT program, 
the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for this 
purpose.
    The committee recommends $117.3 million, and increase of 
$4.0 million, for general information technology.

Hawaii Air National Guard Eagle Vision

    The budget request contained $24.1 million for intelligence 
communications equipment, but contained no funds to procure a 
one-meter synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery system. This 
includes software upgrades for the Hawaii Air National Guard's 
(HANG) Eagle Vision program.
    The HANG Eagle Vision program is a family of systems that 
provide commercial imagery data to operational commanders for 
mission planning and intelligence support purposes. The 
committee understands that the Eagle Vision one-meter SAR 
imagery system will allow the HANG to respond to natural or 
man-made disasters, military contingencies, maritime 
surveillance, and search and rescue operations throughout the 
U.S. Pacific Command's (USPACOM) area of responsibility, and 
believes this capability is necessary to meet USPACOM mission 
requirements.
    The committee recommends $27.6 million for intelligence 
communications equipment, an increase of $3.5 million to 
procure a one-meter SAR imagery system, this includes software 
upgrades for the HANG Eagle Vision program.

Lightweight inflatable decontamination system

    The budget request contained no funds for the lightweight 
inflatable decontamination system (LIDS).
    The committee is aware that the Air National Guard (ANG) 
has an immediate requirement for additional decontamination 
systems and believes that LIDS is a tested and qualified system 
that is readily available to address this critical requirement.
    The committee recommends $4.9 million for additional LIDS 
procurement for the ANG.

Rescue streamer distress signal kit

    The budget request contained no funds for personal safety 
and rescue equipment items less than $2.0 million, or for the 
rescue streamer distress signal kit for the Air National Guard 
(ANG).
    The rescue streamer distress signal kit provides a variety 
of streamers including those attached to ejection seats, life 
rafts, and aircrew equipment vests. The committee believes that 
this system assists in more rapidly locating and recovering 
downed crew members and that it should be installed on ANG 
aircraft and provided to ANG aircrew personnel.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million to 
procure rescue streamer distress signal kits for the ANG.

Terminal radar approach control switchgear and quick connect panel

    The budget request contained $17.4 million for base 
procured equipment, but contained no funds for a terminal radar 
approach control (TRACON) switchgear and quick connect panel 
for the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC).
    The committee understands that the AFFTC TRACON facility 
operates with a forty-year old electrical switching device, 
which, if it failed, would render the TRACON facility without 
power and halt flight operations until replacement of the 
switching device. The committee also understands that the AFFTC 
TRACON facility operates without a quick connect panel to 
immediately provide emergency generator power in the event of 
an electrical power outage.
    The committee recommends $18.1 million for base procured 
equipment, an increase of $0.7 million, to replace the existing 
switchgear system, and to procure a quick-connect panel for a 
portable emergency generator.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $4.9 
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends 
authorization of $5.0 billion, an increase of $119.0 million, 
for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2008 
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


MH-47G Reconstitution

    The budget request contained $61.3 million for the MH-47 
service life extension program (SLEP) managed by U.S. Special 
Operations Command (USSOCOM), but did not contain the level of 
funding necessary to maintain the full complement of 
reconstituted aircraft in the fleet through fiscal year 2011.
    The committee notes that USSOCOM has a requirement for 61 
highly specialized MH-47 aircraft and continues to fund a SLEP 
with the objective to extend the average life of each aircraft 
an additional 20 years. The committee is aware that two MH-47s 
were lost in 2006, one during a pre-deployment training 
accident and another in Operation Enduring Freedom. The 
committee recognizes the crucial, high-demand nature of these 
aircraft, and supports efforts to fully meet the logistical 
requirements of Special Operations Forces, and remains 
committed to a program that will sustain a fleet of 61 upgraded 
aircraft.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $43.9 
million to reconstitute two additional MH-47 aircraft.

Night Vision Devices

    The budget request contained $160.1 million for small arms 
and weapons. Of this amount, the request contained $18.4 
million for night vision devices (NVDs). The committee is aware 
of recent advances in night vision technology and the potential 
to significantly improve tactical sensor capabilities available 
to special operators in the field. The committee understands 
that such developments offer the potential fielding of NVDs 
with dramatically improved fields of view as well as with 
counter-NVDs or ``counter electro-optic'' technologies. The 
committee supports accelerated efforts to field these 
technologies and recommends an increase of $20.0 million for 
night vision devices.

Special Operations Craft-Riverine

    The budget request contained $17.0 million for Special 
Operations Forces (SOF) combatant craft systems, containing 
$4.1 million for the Special Operations Craft-Riverine (SOC-R) 
replacement program.
    The committee recognizes the SOC-R provides a unique 
capability for confronting the demands of counterterrorist and 
counternarcotics missions. The committee is aware that U.S. 
Special Operations Command maintains a fleet of 20 vessels but 
is concerned that the current acquisition plan will fail to 
adequately sustain the fleet at its present level in the 
future.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $26.0 million, an 
increase of $9.0 million, for the SOC-R replacement program.

Special Operations Forces Personnel Equipment Advanced Requirements

    The budget request contained $160.1 million for small arms 
and weapons, containing $62.0 million for Special Operations 
Forces (SOF) Personal Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR).
    The committee commends initiatives to improve individual 
protection for special operators and urges further efforts in 
this area. One area the committee recognizes as deserving 
attention is the effort to field the Modular Supplemental Armor 
Protection (MSAP), an individual body armor system offering 
superior protection against small arms threats. The committee 
understands U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is aware 
of the superior protection provided by MSAP, especially in the 
neck, sides, and groin area of each special operator. The 
committee notes the existence of a USSOCOM unfunded requirement 
for more than 7,100 MSAP units and supports efforts to field 
this additional capability in an expeditious manner.
    The committee also recognizes USSOCOM's effort to improve 
SPEAR Eye Protection for special operators. The committee notes 
that the current requirement is only partially funded and 
understands that a fully funded requirement would significantly 
improve self-protection measures for operators in the field.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.1 million for 
the procurement of MSAP units and $5.0 million increase for 
Special Operations Eye Protection, USSOCOM's top two unfunded 
requirements in fiscal year 2008.

Joint Intelligence Operations Centers

    The establishment of the Joint Intelligence Operations 
Centers (JIOCs) was one of the key elements of remodeling 
Defense Intelligence selected by the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Intelligence (USD(I)) to operationalize intelligence for 
the combatant commanders. The committee commends this 
initiative to achieve intelligence fusion, analysis and 
dissemination, but remains concerned that the effectiveness of 
the JIOCs are being diluted by the proliferation of disparate 
intelligence fusion efforts throughout the department.
    Therefore, the committee directs the USD(I) to submit an 
assessment of JIOC implementation. This assessment shall 
include the JIOC relationship to other intelligence and 
operational fusion centers in combat theaters and lessons 
learned from the establishment of each JIOC categorized by 
combatant command. This assessment shall also include 
documentation by the respective combatant commander as to the 
degree the commanders intelligence requirements are being 
satisfied by the JIOC implementation. This assessment shall be 
submitted to the congressional defense committees by November 
1, 2007.

Persistence intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance

    The committee notes that the military services have clearly 
stated the requirement for wide field-of-view (WFOV) persistent 
surveillance (PS). The committee notes that there are two WFOV/
PS programs underway to offer battalion level WFOV/PS 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to 
commanders to plan and execute combat operations. The committee 
is satisfied with the progress and proof of concept 
demonstrated on both the Army's Constant Hawk program and the 
Marine Corps Angel Fire demonstration. Although each of these 
programs is supporting slightly different missions, the 
committee believes that these programs can be merged into a 
single WFOV/PS ISR activity, and that the best of each program 
can be incorporated into a single operational capability, while 
ensuring that the information collected can be accessed in a 
manner that best meets the needs of the end user.
    Therefore, the committee strongly recommends that the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence provide guidance to the 
Departments of the Army and Navy that these two WFOV/PS ISR 
programs be merged to ensure the capability is deployed to 
support operations as efficiently as possible. Furthermore, the 
committee recommends that all funding be used to improve the 
infrastructure, communications paths, bandwidth, processing 
tools, exploitation tools, and to support WFV/PS ISR for other 
ISR programs.

                Procurement, National Guard and Reserve


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2008 contained $1.1 
billion for the procurement of National Guard and Reserve 
Component equipment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $500.0 million for 
the procurement of critical, high-priority miscellaneous 
equipment to include aircraft, missiles, wheeled and tracked 
combat vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, other 
weapons, and other procurement to address National Guard and 
reserve component unfunded equipment shortfalls.
    The committee notes that the events of September 11, 2001, 
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom 
(OEF) have caused dramatic changes in how National Guard and 
reserve components are used to support overseas operational 
missions and domestic security and preparedness tasks. The 
National Guard is no longer a strategic reserve component but 
is now considered an operational force. The extended commitment 
of the National Guard and reserve components to meet wartime 
requirements of OIF and OEF has exposed longstanding pre-
September 11, 2001 wartime-related equipping, manning, 
resourcing and policy issues that must be considered a top 
priority of the Department of Defense. The committee is aware 
that personnel, equipment, and training readiness for the 
National Guard and reserve components have fallen dramatically 
since 2001 and feels this is an unacceptable situation.
    The committee is aware this budget request provides a 
significant increase in procurement funding for National Guard 
and reserve component equipment from previous budget requests; 
however, the committee notes that despite this increase in 
funds, significant equipment shortfalls still exist for many 
National Guard and reserve component units. The committee is 
aware the Army National Guard has only 40 percent of its 
required equipment in the continental United States. The 
committee understands the Chief of Staff of the National Guard 
Bureau has submitted a $2.0 billion unfunded requirement for 
equipment for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense 
to work closely with the congressional defense committees to 
generate an effective resourcing plan to address these critical 
readiness shortfalls of the National Guard and reserve 
components. 


                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


           Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations

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

           Section 105--National Guard and Reserve Equipment

    This section would authorize $500.0 million for the 
procurement of aircraft, missiles, wheeled and tracked combat 
vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, 
and other procurement for the National Guard and Reserve 
Components.

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs


  Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for M1A2 Abrams System 
                      Enhancement Package Vehicles

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
enter a multiyear procurement contract in accordance with 
section 2306b if title 10, United States Code, for up to five 
years for M1A2 Abrams SEP tanks.

Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for M2A3 Bradley Fighting 
Vehicles, M3A3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicles, and M2A3 Bradley Fire Support 
                             Team Vehicles

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
enter a multiyear procurement contract in accordance with 
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, for up to four 
years for three different models of the Bradley Fighting 
Vehicle.

 Section 113--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Conversion of CH-47D 
                  Helicopters to CH-47F Configuration

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
enter a multiyear contract in accordance with section 2306b of 
title 10, United States Code, beginning with the fiscal year 
2008 program year, for the conversion of CH-47D helicopters to 
the CH-47F configuration.

   Section 114-Multiyear Procurement Authority for CH-47F Helicopters

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
enter a multiyear contract in accordance with section 2306b of 
title 10, United States Code, beginning with the fiscal year 
2008 program year, for procurement of CH-47 helicopters in the 
CH-47F configuration.

Section 115--Limitation on Use of Funds for Joint Network Node Program 
                   Pending Certification to Congress

    This section would limit the amount of funding that can be 
obligated or expended from funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available for the Joint Network Node (JNN) program in fiscal 
year 2008 to 50 percent of the total amount appropriated until 
the Secretary of the Army certifies that (1) the JNN program is 
an official program of record in accordance with Department of 
Defense Instruction 5000.2, ``Operation of the Defense 
Acquisition System,'' May 12, 2003; (2) that the Director, 
Operational Test and Evaluation has approved a plan for a JNN 
operational test and evaluation; and (3) the Army plans to seek 
competitive bids for all future lots of JNN equipment.

  Section 116--Prohibition on Closure of Army Tactical Missile System 
                     Production Line Pending Report

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available in fiscal 
year 2008, or any other funds available to the Secretary of the 
Army, toward any costs associated with shutting down the Army 
Tactical Missile System production line until the Secretary of 
the Army submits to the congressional defense committees with a 
report that (1) certifies that the long range strike and 
counter battery mission can be adequately performed by the 
other services; (2) details the Army's plan to mitigate any 
shortfalls in the industrial base that are created by the 
closing of the ATACMS production line; and (3) specifies the 
Army's plans to replace its capability to perform long range 
surface-to-surface strike and counter battery missions.
    The committee is concerned that a termination of the ATACMS 
production line will leave a gap in the Army's capability for 
deep strike surface-to-surface operations in future years. As 
the Army's sole long range surface-to-surface missile system, 
ATACMS provides unique capabilities in its 270 kilometer range 
and effectiveness in counter-battery missions, that no other 
current Army system can provide. There are currently no plans 
to produce a replacement system for these capabilities that the 
Army will lose as it expends the remaining missiles in 
inventory.
    Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of the 
Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
by April 1, 2008, and that no funds will be appropriated or 
otherwise made available until 120 days after this report is 
submitted. Further, production of ATACMS missiles shall 
continue until this report is delivered.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs


   Section 121--Authority to Transfer Funds for Submarine Engineered 
Refueling Overhauls and Conversions and for Aircraft Carrier Refueling 
                           Complex Overhauls

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer up to $20.0 million from any appropriation account to 
the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, account, for 
unanticipated or emergent maintenance or repair requirements 
discovered during the conduct of the submarine or aircraft 
carrier refueling overhaul providing the maintenance or repair 
requirements are necessary to return the vessel to full 
operational capability at the conclusion of the overhaul.
    The committee understands that the Navy carefully plans the 
funding requirements to conduct submarine and aircraft carrier 
refueling overhauls, but that additional maintenance or repair 
requirements identified during the conduct of the overhauls are 
not always performed due to the limitations of funding 
authorized and appropriated for the overhaul. The committee 
understands that correction of the identified maintenance or 
repair requirement in subsequent maintenance availability 
incurs additional cost to the government than would have 
occurred if the maintenance or repair had been completed during 
the original overhaul.
    This section would require the Secretary to notify the 
congressional defense committees when funds have been 
transferred under this section along with an explanation of the 
maintenance or repair requirement discovered during the conduct 
of the overhaul.

    Section 122--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Virginia-Class 
                           Submarine Program

    This section would allow the Secretary of the Navy to enter 
a multiyear procurement contract in accordance with section 
2306b of title 10, United States Code, beginning with the 
program year starting in fiscal year 2009, for additional 
Virginia-class submarines.

    Section 123--Limitation on Final Assembly of VH-71 Presidential 
                         Transport Helicopters

    This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of 
funds, pursuant to an authorization of appropriations, for the 
final assembly of more than five VH-71 presidential transport 
helicopters; however, this limitation would not apply if the 
final assembly of the helicopter is carried out in the United 
States.

  Section 124--Limitation on Operational Deployment of Weapons System 
  that Uses Trident Missiles Converted to Carry Conventional Payloads

    This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2008 
funds for operational deployment of the weapons system that 
uses converted Trident missiles to carry conventional payloads. 
Further, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit written notification to the congressional defense 
committees within 30 days of the date on which the Secretary 
determines that the system is fully functional and fielding is 
necessary to meet military requirements.

 Section 125--Program to Provide Contractors with Capital Expenditure 
                               Incentives

    This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to 
carry out a program providing capital expenditure incentives 
for contractors in the shipbuilding industry. This section 
would authorize the Secretary to use funds in the Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy, account to invest in infrastructure, 
process, or training improvements when such an investment would 
be beneficial to the government and lower overall costs of ship 
construction programs.
    The committee believes that the rising cost of ship 
construction can be mitigated by improvements in efficiency at 
the construction yards and major subcontractors. The committee 
believes the most significant gains in efficiency are derived 
from capital investment in state of the art manufacturing 
equipment that both improves quality of the finished product 
and reduces the labor hours required.
    This section would require the Secretary to annually report 
on the capital investment projects awarded, the costs 
associated with the project, and the anticipated savings to be 
derived from the project.

 Section 126--Limitation on use of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
              Funds for Employment of Nonimmigrant Workers

    This section would prohibit the use of shipbuilding and 
conversion, Navy, funds for the purpose of construction of a 
Navy vessel at a construction facility where the contractor 
employs or contracts for foreign workers who are legally 
present in the United States under the H2B visa program. This 
section would allow for an exception to the above requirement 
if the contractor certifies that it has fully complied with all 
existing laws and regulations in regards to the H2B visa 
program, and that the contractor has attempted to recruit U.S. 
shipyard workers in geographical areas that the Secretary of 
the Navy has identified may have potential labor surpluses 
within the next five years. This section would also require the 
Secretary of the Navy to identify such shipyards in the annual 
naval vessel construction plan, required by section 231 of 
title 10, United States Code.

Section 127--Limitation on Concurrent Design and Construction on First 
                     Ship of a Shipbuilding Program

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
certify to the congressional defense committees that research 
and development, detailed design, and contractor preparedness 
are mature prior to the start of construction of the first ship 
in a new class of vessels, the first ship to be built at a 
shipyard, or the first vessel after a major design change, 
characterized as a change in flight.

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs


            Section 131--Limitation on Retiring C-5 Aircraft

    This section would allow the Secretary of the Air Force to 
retire C-5A aircraft from the inventory and replace the 
capability with C-17 aircraft if the cost analysis performed is 
prudent in meeting strategic airlift requirements and does not 
significantly increase overall costs above those already 
planned in the out-years. Before C-5A retirement can commence, 
the Secretary must submit to the congressional defense 
committees a cost analysis performed by a Federally Funded 
Research and Development Center that evaluates retiring C-5A 
aircraft and procuring C-17 aircraft versus performing the 
Avionics Modernization Program and the Reliability Enhancement 
and Re-engining Program on C-5A aircraft is more prudent in 
meeting strategic airlift mobility requirements; submit 
certification that the Department can comply with the strategic 
airlift inventory requirement of 299 aircraft by October 1, 
2008, section 8062(g) of title 10, United States Code; and, 
submit certification that operational risk will not 
significantly increase in meeting the National Military 
Strategy objectives by retiring C-5A aircraft and procuring 
additional C-17 aircraft.

            Section 132--Limitation on Joint Cargo Aircraft

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force 
or the Secretary of the Army from obligating or expending 
authorized appropriations for the development or procurement of 
the Joint Cargo Aircraft until 30 days after the Secretary of 
Defense submits to the congressional defense committees the Air 
Force Air Mobility Command's Airlift Mobility Roadmap; the 
Department of Defense Intra-Theater Airlift Capabilities Study; 
the Department of Defense Joint Intra-Theater Distribution 
Assessment the Joint Cargo Aircraft Functional Area Series 
Analysis; the Joint Cargo Aircraft Analysis of Alternatives; 
and the Secretary of Defense certifies that validated 
operational requirements exist to fill a Department of the 
Army, Department of the Air Force, Army National Guard, or Air 
National Guard capability gap or shortfall for intra-theater 
airlift with the Joint Cargo Aircraft.

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

    This section would amend section 133 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct an 
annual review of the U-2 and Global Hawk transition plan and an 
assessment of the migration of U-2's intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to the Global 
Hawk platform, highlighting any potential gaps in capability. 
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
present the findings to Congress and concurrence the U-2 is no 
longer needed, by April 1st each year until the transition is 
complete.

Section 134--Repeal of Requirement to Maintain Retired C-130E Tactical 
                            Airlift Aircraft

    This section would repeal section 137(b) of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364).

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

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $75.1 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee 
recommends $73.3 billion, a decrease of $1.8 billion to the 
budget request. 


                       Items of Special Interest


Active Protection Systems

    The committee recognizes the need for future military 
ground vehicles to incorporate active protection technologies 
due to the increasing array and capability of anti-vehicle 
combat systems. The committee is aware that both domestic and 
foreign producers offer a wide range of active protection 
systems (APS) using various technologies. The committee urges 
the Department of Defense to pursue multiple APS development 
paths due to the diversity of the threats that ground vehicles 
will face in the future. In addition, due to the non-linear 
nature of the battlefield in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom today, the committee supports APS 
research that seeks to develop protection for light and wheeled 
vehicles, as well as heavier armored combat platforms.

Advanced lightweight armor materials

    The budget request contained $18.6 million in PE 62105A for 
materials technology.
    The programs under this account aim to model, characterize, 
and incorporate lightweight materials, structures, and 
processing technologies to enhance survivability of future 
ground combat vehicles and individual soldier systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
62105A for the development of advanced lightweight armor 
materials to accelerate work in improving the multi-functional 
performance capability and survivability of combat vehicles.

Aerial Common Sensor

    The budget request contained $26.4 million in PE 23744A for 
the Department of the Army aerial common sensor (ACS) and 
contained $16.6 million in PE 35207N for the Department of the 
Navy's Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) programs.
    The committee recognizes that the nation requires the 
recapitalization of the legacy aerial reconnaissance-low (ARL), 
RC-12 Guardrail Common Sensor (GRCS), and EP-3 programs in 
order to succeed in current military operations, provide 
support to national decision makers, and keep apace of the 
strategic threat. The committee notes that this is the Army's 
second and the Navy's third attempt in recapitalizing these 
critical systems. Over $249.0 million has been expended on 
failed ACS programs. After most recently attempting to execute 
a joint program, each service has decided to develop its own 
capability.
    The committee believes that the Army ACS program continues 
to lack definition and therefore a budget request of this 
magnitude is premature. The committee is concerned that 
previously funded ACS efforts in sensor development, 
performance modeling, intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) integration and operational concepts have 
not been fully incorporated into the restructured program. The 
committee notes that the current definition does not account 
for the Department's validated military ISR requirements or 
integrated architectures.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to initiate 
a program new start for the EP-3 replacement, EP-X, in this 
fiscal year, and transfer remaining funds from the ACS programs 
to the new EP-X program element.
    The committee cautions the Departments of the Army and Navy 
that the ACS program of record must consider common mission 
systems and consider platforms already in the individual 
services' inventory. The committee encourages risk mitigation 
of the ACS program through the reuse of technical data 
available from the cancelled contract.
    The committee recommends $21.4 million, a decrease of $5.0 
million, in PE 23744A for the Department of the Army ACS 
program, and $12.6 million in PE 35207N, a decrease of $4.0 
million, for the Department of the Navy ACS program.

Army missile defense systems integration

    The budget request contained $14.4 million in PE 63305A for 
Army missile defense systems integration.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
63305A. Of the increased amount, $2.0 million is for the 
continued development of integrated composite mounting hardware 
for use within missile defense interceptors and $5.0 million is 
for the advanced hardening initiative.

Cable warning and obstacle avoidance system

    The budget request contained $35.9 million in PE 63710A for 
night vision advanced technology, but contained no funding for 
the cable warning and obstacle avoidance system.
    The committee understands that wires, cables, and other 
obstacles are a major threat to low flying military aircraft 
during training and combat operations. Helicopter operations 
often are required at a very low altitude during periods of 
reduced visibility caused by a variety of environmental 
conditions. The committee is aware that an all-weather 
millimeter wave-imaging radar helicopter demonstration has 
shown promising results for providing the required warning to 
helicopter crews. However, additional development is required 
to increase the field of view, extend the wire detection range, 
and adapt the system for the helicopter vibration environment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63710A to complete development of an all-weather cable warning 
and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters and to 
demonstrate an operational prototype.

Common Remote Operating Weapon Station

    The budget request contained $45.2 million in PE 64601A for 
infantry support weapons; but contained no funds for the 
integration of the Javelin anti-tank missile onto the common 
remote operating weapon station (CROWS).
    The CROWS system is a 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. The committee is 
aware CROWS has proven its capability successfully and 
effectively in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee 
understands developmental efforts are underway to integrate 
Javelin anti-tank missiles into the CROWS system. The committee 
believes this program could act as a combat multiplier for Army 
light infantry brigade combat teams performing unconventional 
or reconnaissance missions.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.4 million in PE 
64601A to complete the integration of the Javelin anti-tank 
missile onto CROWS systems for operational test and evaluation.

Digital array radar

    The budget request contained $67.0 million in PE 63772A for 
advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology, but 
contained no funds for digital array radar or advanced radar 
transceiver integrated circuit development.
    The committee supports the completion of the development of 
the digital array radar in order to validate the technology to 
support battlefield radar requirements. The committee also 
supports advanced digital transceiver dual-use development for 
phased array missile, early warning, weather, and air traffic 
control purposes.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63772A to complete development and test digital array radar 
prototype antenna technology and $5.0 million in PE 63772A for 
phased array radar transceiver integrated circuit development.

Enhanced flame retardant clothing systems

    The budget request contained $45.2 million in PE 64601A for 
infantry support weapons, containing $9.7 million for projects 
involving state-of-the-art individual clothing and equipment to 
improve the survivability and mobility of the individual 
soldier; however, the request contained no funds for enhanced 
flame retardant (FR) clothing systems.
    The committee understands there is a need for enhanced FR 
clothing systems that would provide force protection to the 
warfighter from severe burns resulting from incendiary 
improvised explosive devices used in Operation Iraqi Freedom as 
well as protect the warfighter from enemy detection and 
observation. The committee notes the U.S. Marine Corps is also 
developing flame resistant organizational gear to address 
similar requirements. The committee strongly encourages the 
Army and the Marine Corps to share critical information 
regarding enhanced FR clothing systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
64601A for the rapid development of enhanced FR clothing 
systems.

Epidemiological studies for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
        Enduring Freedom

    The budget request contained $53.3 million in PE 63002A for 
advanced medical technologies, but contained no funds for 
epidemiological studies.
    The committee remains strongly committed to the health 
surveillance and protection of members of the armed forces. 
Sections 733, 734, 735, and 738 of the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 
Law 108-375) required the Department of Defense (DOD) to create 
a baseline health data collection program, to track medical 
care and surveillance in the theater of operations, to 
declassify information on exposures to environmental hazards, 
and to fully implement a medical readiness tracking and health 
surveillance program and force health protection and readiness 
program. The committee remains concerned that while the 
services and the Department have made efforts to meet the 
intent of the law, the Department is not meeting the full 
requirement and the military services are not effectively 
carrying out many of DOD's policies.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish 
an epidemiological tracking initiative that would capture 
relevant data from servicemembers returning from overseas 
operational deployment to create a database of 
epidemiologically relevant data. The initiative shall then 
provide the opportunity for researchers to compete for funding 
on both the basis of scientific merit and the contribution that 
the studies could make to the identification, diagnosis, and 
treatment of deployment-related illness(es).
    The committee recommends that the projects to be considered 
for funding under the epidemiological tracking initiative 
include, but are not limited to the following:
          (1) Multiple Sclerosis; and
          (2) Adverse health events associated with the use of 
        anti-malarial drugs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63002A for the establishment of the Epidemiological Tracking 
Initiative and creation of the database of epidemiologically 
relevant data.

Future Combat Systems Program

    The budget request contained $3.7 billion for the Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) program.
    The committee's recommendation to decrease authorized 
funding for the FCS program in fiscal year 2008 is based upon a 
combination of significant program schedule and cost 
challenges, a history of Army changes to the FCS program, and a 
serious concern about how the cost of the FCS program could 
undermine the future health of the Army. Although the committee 
continues to support moving mature technologies that provide 
needed military capability to the field as soon as possible, 
the committee is concerned that the larger context in which the 
FCS program exists has changed significantly since the program 
began, but the Army has not sufficiently adjusted the FCS 
program to accommodate the new reality the Army faces.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 the 
committee expressed its views regarding the cost and schedule 
of the FCS program. Despite the Army's restructuring of the FCS 
program in January 2007, the committee remains concerned that 
the Army's effort to develop FCS brigades continues to pose a 
high risk of significant cost increases and substantial 
schedule delays. In section 115 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an 
independent cost analysis of the FCS program. This cost 
estimate, conducted by the Institute for Defense Analysis, 
concluded that the research, development, test and evaluation 
(RDT&E) costs for the FCS program could grow by $13.0 billion 
over current Army projections, a 50 percent increase in overall 
RDT&E costs. This analysis of possible cost increase in RDT&E 
is similar to 2006 RDT&E cost estimates by the Cost Analysis 
Improvement Group, an element of the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense.
    Additionally, the committee is concerned about the Army's 
changing position on the overall purpose and size of the FCS 
program. When funding was first authorized for FCS in the Bob 
Stump National Defense Authorization Act of 2003 (Public Law 
107-314), the Army's goal was to have an initial FCS 
operational capability in 2010 followed by the conversion of 
the Army's entire combat force to FCS brigades by 2032. In 
2007, the Army's goal is to have an initial FCS operational 
capability in 2015, with just fifteen of the Army's seventy-six 
combat brigades converted to FCS configuration by 2029. 
Overall, the Army's plans for the FCS program have changed from 
a program intended to rapidly transform the entire Army to one 
that would focus on transforming just 20 percent of the Army's 
combat units and provide a medium-weight combat capability 
similar to that provided by existing Stryker brigade combat 
teams.
    Finally, the committee believes that the overall context in 
which the FCS program exists has changed dramatically. When 
first conceived in 1999, the Army was not at war, there was 
little chance of the size of the Army increasing, and 
modernization of the Army's existing equipment was not well 
funded. From the committee's perspective in 2007, all of these 
basic assumptions have changed. High operational demands on the 
Army are likely to continue for many years with attendant costs 
of replacing and resetting equipment used during ongoing 
operations. Furthermore, the Army is now on a path to add 
significant additional troops to its ranks, and many other Army 
equipment modernization efforts are well funded in the 2008-
2013 Future Years Defense Program.
    Given the Army's many other RDT&E, procurement, and force 
structure efforts, including continued reset costs to support 
overseas deployments, upgrades to current combat systems, fully 
equipping the Army National Guard, completion of the Army's 
modular force initiative, and the growth in the size of the 
Army over the next five years, the committee does not believe 
that the FCS program is on a sustainable or realistic path. As 
a result, the committee recommends substantial changes to the 
structure of the FCS program in fiscal year 2008. The 
committee's recommended changes seek to preserve the aspects of 
the FCS program that could, if successful, benefit the entire 
Army and get useful equipment into the hands of soldiers on a 
realistic timeline. However, the committee's recommended 
changes seek to delay aspects of the FCS program that will not 
deliver capability for many years, or are redundant given 
existing Army capabilities. The committee expects the Army to 
comply with existing law regarding fielding of the Non Line of 
Sight Cannon (NLOS-C), which directs the Army to deliver both 
Increment 0 and Increment 1 prototypes for the NLOS-C in 
accordance with the schedule found in the Army's 2008 budget 
justification materials.

Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles

    The budget request contained $696.3 million in PE 64660A 
for Future Combat Systems (FCS) manned ground vehicle 
development.
    The committee is concerned that much of the FCS manned 
ground vehicles' survivability in combat is tied to FCS sensors 
and networking equipment providing vehicle crew members with 
unprecedented levels of situational awareness regarding enemy 
and friendly forces. Because the network and sensor elements of 
FCS are being developed at the same time as the vehicles, 
should the sensor and network elements face delays or not meet 
performance expectations, it is possible that the Army would 
have to reevaluate the design of the FCS manned ground vehicles 
late in the development process to accommodate lower network 
capability than now assumed. Changes late in a development 
cycle could push FCS manned ground vehicles beyond an 
affordable level given the Army's other procurement goals 
outside the FCS program in the 2010-2015 timeframe. Based on 
this cost risk, delays in complementary programs, high-risk 
technology elements, and unstable requirements, the committee 
believes that the Army should delay the development of FCS 
manned ground vehicles.
    The committee recommends $463.0 million, a decrease of 
$233.3 million in PE 64660A, for FCS manned ground vehicle 
development. The committee notes that this decrease leaves 
intact the FCS program's efforts to develop the non line-of-
sight cannon system, funding for which is authorized under a 
separate program element. The committee also leaves funding 
intact for development of active protection systems, which the 
committee believes is an important element for all future Army 
vehicles.

Future Combat Systems system of systems engineering and program 
        management

    The budget request contained $1.6 billion in PE 64661A for 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) system of systems engineering and 
program management.
    This budget request is based upon integration of work done 
in the other aspects of the FCS program that are separately 
funded. Because the committee is recommending significant 
decreases to other parts of the FCS program, the committee 
believes that decreases in the FCS system of systems 
engineering and program management program element are 
warranted to properly align overall program management and 
engineering efforts with the total authorized level of funding.
    The committee recommends $1.0 billion, a decrease of $566.3 
million in PE 64661A, for FCS system of systems engineering and 
program management.

Future Combat Systems unmanned aerial systems

    The budget request contained $41.1 million in PE 64662A for 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) unmanned aerial systems (UAS) 
development.
    The committee notes that the Army is currently fielding a 
large fleet of UAS of various models and capabilities. The 
committee believes that the Class IV FCS unmanned aerial system 
provides a capability that would be redundant when considering 
other Army UAS programs.
    The committee recommends $20.1 million, a decrease of $21.0 
million in PE 64662A, for FCS UAS development.

Future Combat Systems unmanned ground vehicles

    The budget request contained $90.7 million in PE 64663A for 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) unmanned ground vehicle 
development.
    The committee believes that while large or armed FCS 
unmanned ground vehicles could provide a useful capability to 
the Army in the future, a combination of high-risk technology 
development, unclear requirements, and immature operational 
concepts require additional time devoted to developing basic 
technologies for large or armed FCS unmanned ground vehicles.
    The committee recommends $43.9 million, a decrease of $46.7 
million in PE 64663A, for FCS unmanned ground vehicle 
development.

Global Combat Support System

    The budget request contained $129.7 million in PE 33141A 
for the Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-A).
    GCSS-A is the tactical component of the Single Army 
Logistics Enterprise (SALE), and will implement a comprehensive 
logistics automation solution for deployed units that provides 
streamlined supply operations, maintenance operations, property 
accountability and logistics management, and integration 
procedures. The committee notes, however, that the Army is 
encountering problems in executing the acquisition and test 
strategies for this program, which will likely affect the 
Army's ability to execute funds in a timely manner.
    The committee recommends $94.7 million, a decrease of $35.0 
million in PE 33141A to GCSS-A.

Leishmaniasis skin test antigen

    The budget request contained $12.5 million in PE 63807A for 
medical systems advanced development, but contained no funds 
for leishmaniasis skin test antigen.
    Leishmaniasis is normally a cutaneous parasitic disease 
that is endemic to many global regions where U.S. military 
involvement is possible. Approximately 1000 cases a year are 
diagnosed in military personnel deployed to Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, which has resulted in a 
significant number of evacuations for treatment in the 
continental United States. During Operation Desert Storm, 
visceralization of the disease was observed for the first time, 
leading to a number of servicemember fatalities. Leishmaniasis 
also poses a threat to the blood supply, which is now managed 
by screening out military donors who have recently returned 
from deployment in endemic regions.
    The committee understands that in fiscal year 2000, the 
U.S. Army Medical Material Development Activity programmed 
funds for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) trials of a 
diagnostic antigen skin test that had been under intramural 
development, but because of funding constraints ceased support 
in fiscal year 2003 to concentrate exclusively on clinical 
treatments for those personnel already presenting symptoms. The 
committee believes a leishmania antigen skin test would provide 
a valuable tool for military doctors to identify and provide 
definitive care to asymptomatic servicemembers infected with 
the parasite, and to safeguard the blood supply by screening 
out servicemembers who should not become donors.
    The committee recommends $14.5 million, an increase of $2.0 
million in PE 63807A, to support FDA phase III trials of the 
leishmaniasis skin test antigen.

Lightweight small arms technologies

    The budget request contained $8.1 million in PE 63607A for 
the joint service small arms program, containing $7.3 million 
for lightweight small arms technologies (LSAT) demonstrations.
    The LSAT program is attempting to reduce the weight of 
current soldier small arms and small caliber ammunition by 30 
to 40 percent. The committee understands small arms and small 
caliber ammunition are two of the four heaviest items an 
infantryman carries into combat. The committee notes that the 
basic infantryman entering combat can be required to carry 
combat configured loads of equipment exceeding 90 pounds. The 
committee is supportive of efforts that accelerate advanced 
technologies to reduce the combat carrying equipment load for 
dismounted infantrymen. Additionally, the committee believes 
lighter combat configured equipment loads will have a positive 
effect on soldier performance and mobility.
    The committee recommends $13.1 million, an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 63607A to accelerate the early ``spin out'' 
demonstrations of lightweight technology enhancements to 
existing small arms weapon programs.

Longitudinal research on troop health outcomes

    The Veterans Health Care Amendments of 1983 (Public Law 98-
160) directed the Department of Veterans Administration to 
conduct a study in order to better understand Vietnam veterans' 
psychological postwar adjustment trends. This investigation, 
known as the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, 
provided results and recommendations to Congress that continue 
to help shape important public policies for the prevention and 
treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder for military and 
veteran populations. With ongoing deployments to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom there is evidence, 
from short-term studies of military personnel and veterans, 
that the current war zones may be associated with unique health 
outcomes not seen in former veterans' cohorts. Experts 
acknowledge that these problems may negatively affect both 
military readiness and the quality of life of deployed service 
members and their families.
    The committee believes that a representative, longitudinal 
study with a comprehensive clinical assessment of key outcomes 
is required so that the true needs of deployed service members 
and their families can be identified and supported. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs to engage in a research partnership to 
proactively identify and address the short and long-term health 
and behavioral health consequences of war zone service among 
servicemembers and their families.

Modeling fatigue and cognitive effectiveness

    The budget request contained $76.5 million in PE 62787A for 
medical technologies, containing $3.1 million for modeling 
fatigue in warfighters, but contained no funds for modeling the 
impact of fatigue on operationally-relevant cognitive 
effectiveness.
    The committee is aware of the need for understanding the 
interaction between the warfighter's fatigue and operationally-
relevant cognitive effectiveness. The committee believes that 
technology solutions that improve this understanding and can 
provide relevant data to battlefield commanders would prove 
critical to the commander's situational awareness.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
62787A for developing modeling technology to evaluate 
individual warfighter fatigue and operationally-relevant 
cognitive effectiveness.

Nanocrystaline laminates and protective coatings for rotorcraft 
        windscreens

    Blowing sand and dust particles cause damage to helicopter 
windscreens, inhibiting the ability of aircrew members to see 
through the windscreens, requiring the expenditure of funds, 
and resulting in aircraft downtime to repair.
    The committee is aware that thin film laminates are being 
applied to helicopters operating in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom which is resulting in dollar and 
manpower savings. Promising technology has also been 
demonstrated using plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition 
for applying a nanocrystalline diamond thin film layer onto 
critical engine, transmission, and structural aircraft 
components to increase durability in harsh environments.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
examine the use of nanocrystalline diamond coatings and 
protective laminants on critical systems to preserve 
components, increase aircraft availability, reduce costs, and 
increase safety.

Network enabled combat identification

    The budget request contained $39.8 million in PE 62120A for 
sensors and electronic survivability, containing $1.9 million 
for combat identification (CID) technologies.
    The committee recognizes the urgent need to field a cost-
effective CID network combat capability that will provide the 
warfighter greater freedom of action and enable enhanced 
operational tempo, while reducing fratricide in all tactical 
and operational environments including urban and restrictive 
terrain.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
62120A for continued development and demonstration of network 
enabled CID.

Oxygen diffusion dressings

    The budget request contained $76.5 million in PE 62787A for 
medical technology, but included no funding for oxygen 
diffusion dressings for the accelerated healing of battlefield 
wounds and burns.
    Wounds are generally hypoxic and oxygen has been shown to 
have a beneficial effect on wound healing. The committee 
understands, however, that practical implementation of oxygen 
therapy at reasonable cost with broad flexibility has been 
problematic. The committee is aware that the Food and Drug 
Administration has recently approved an oxygen diffusion 
dressing that allows the slow release of oxygen directly to the 
wound site. The committee believes these dressings have the 
potential to improve outcomes for servicemembers suffering from 
burns and injuries, two priorities for the U.S. Army Institute 
for Surgical Research.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
62787A to assess the efficacy of oxygen diffusion dressings in 
reducing healing time, pain, scarring, and complications such 
as infection.

Patriot/Medium Extended Air Defense System combined aggregate program

    The budget request contained $372.1 million in PE 64869A 
for the Patriot/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) 
combined aggregate program, a decrease of $177.3 million from 
what was originally planned for fiscal year 2008 according to 
budget justification material provided by the Army.
    The committee is concerned that this decrease could 
potentially impact the U.S. contribution to the tri-national 
U.S./German/Italian MEADS program. The committee is aware that 
the Army plans to re-program approximately $42.0 million to 
ensure that it meets its commitments to the MEADS program. The 
committee believes that MEADS will provide the warfighter an 
improved capability to deal with short- and medium-range 
ballistic and cruise missile threats and encourages the Army to 
fully fund the MEADS program in its future budget requests.
    The committee recommends $372.1 million in PE 64869A for 
the Patriot/Medium Extended Air Defense System combined 
aggregate program, the amount of the budget request.

Polymer matrix composites for rotorcraft drive systems

    The budget request contained $53.9 million in PE 63003A for 
aviation advanced technology, but contained no funds for the 
demonstration of polymer matrix composite drive trains.
    The committee notes the opportunity to reduce production, 
operations, and support costs of rotorcraft through the use of 
polymer matrix composite (PMC) technologies for major 
components such as drive trains. Prior year funding for risk 
reduction and coupon testing has resulted in the development of 
PMC full scale test articles that require life system testing 
prior to integration for actual rotorcraft testing.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63003A to demonstrate full scale PMC drive train test articles 
under the rotorcraft drive system-21 program.

RAND Arroyo Center

    The budget request contained $16.3 million in PE 65103A for 
the RAND Arroyo Center.
    The committee is concerned that the Army proposed 
decreasing the budget for its only Federally Funded Research 
and Development Center (FFRDC) from a requested amount of $21.5 
million in fiscal year 2007 to a requested amount of $16.3 
million in fiscal year 2008. The committee recognizes the 
important role of FFRDCs in developing solutions to critical 
Army resourcing, logistics, manpower, training, technology 
development and strategic concepts challenges, and believes 
that the proposed 24 percent funding decrease will 
significantly reduce the RAND Arroyo Center's ability to 
provide high-quality analysis to the Army.
    The committee recommends $18.3 million, an increase of $2.0 
million in PE 65103A for the RAND Arroyo Center.

Sensor visualization and data fusion program

    The budget request contained $81.6 million in PE 35208A for 
the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS).
    The committee recognizes the potential for the DCGS program 
to enhance the capabilities of commanders to synchronize and 
consolidate intelligence data fusion efforts. The committee 
also recognizes the use for video simulation of battlefield 
threats in mission rehearsals.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
35208A for the sensor visualization and data fusion research 
within the DCGS program.

Smart energetic architecture for missile systems

    The budget request contained no funds for the smart 
energetic architecture for missile systems.
    The smart energetic architecture for missile systems is 
intended to improve the safety, reliability, and performance of 
missile systems across the Department of Defense.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 
63313A to raise the technology readiness level rating of the 
smart energetic architecture for missile systems.

Tactical metal fabrication system

    The budget request contained no funds for the tactical 
metal fabrication system.
    The tactical metal fabrication system would provide a 
mobile, containerized foundry to provide deployed forces with 
the capability to manufacturer repair parts in theater.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.3 million in PE 
62601A for the tactical metal fabrication system.

Tactical wheeled vehicle improvement program

    The budget request contained no funds for the tactical 
wheeled vehicle improvement program.
    The committee remains concerned about casualties caused by 
rollovers of overweight lightweight tactical wheeled vehicles. 
While survivability against improvised explosive devices 
remains a primary concern, the importance of rollover 
prevention should also be considered as the Department of 
Defense develops the next generation of lightweight tactical 
vehicles as an important force protection measure. The 
committee is aware domestic torque-vectoring technology could 
increase stability and performance in lightweight commercially 
available vehicles. The committee notes torque-vectoring allows 
active control of wheel speed ratio and torque distribution 
typically through the application of multi-plate wet clutches 
coupled with advance gear-train technology. The committee 
encourages the Secretary of Army to examine the feasibility and 
capital investment required to develop the means to transfer 
commercially available torque-vectoring technology, once its 
been demonstrated, to the emerging and future classes of 
lightweight tactical wheeled vehicles.

Tactical wheeled vehicle long term armoring strategy

    The budget request contained $131.4 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology.
    The committee understands the Army's long-term armoring 
strategy (LTAS) is a long-term capabilities-based armoring 
strategy for tactical wheeled vehicles (TWVs) that would 
provide greater protection to TWVs than the currently fielded 
add-on-armor kits, as well as provide battlefield commanders 
with the capability to change protection levels based on the 
mission, threat, or technology changes using an A-Kit/B-Kit 
concept. The committee is aware LTAS is not a program in 
itself, but rather an armor initiative that would address 
commonality and standardization of armor-related components 
across the TWV fleet. The committee understands the LTAS would 
allow for the upgrade of armor protection as the force 
protection threat increases or as new armoring technologies are 
developed. The committee supports this initiative and commends 
the Army for pursuing this capability based strategy.
    The committee understands aluminum has been chosen as a 
base material for the development of future TWV armor kits as 
part of the LTAS. The committee understands fiscal year 2007 
appropriations are being used to perform the design and 
development of several large structural components for the 
truck fleet to include the integration of an aluminum A-kit, 
side plates, frame rails, cross members into a common chassis. 
The committee also understands significant work is being 
conducted to advance the development and re-engineer the design 
of antiballistic windshield armor prototypes (AWA) to be 
integrated onto the TWV fleet.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63005A to demonstrate the use of aluminum alloys, processes, 
and other joining technologies to meet LTAS requirements for 
the TWV fleet, as well as an increase of $4.5 million in PE 
63005A for the development of advanced AWA prototypes.

Training-based collaborative research in consequence management

    The budget request contained $17.4 million in PE 62716A for 
human factors engineering technology, but contained no funds 
for training-based collaborative research in military 
consequent management efforts.
    The committee strongly supports Department of Defense 
initiatives to improve training and urges the Department to 
establish well-defined training performance measurements as a 
means to ameliorate effective training and soldier performance 
on the battlefield, especially for arduous and dynamic 
situations involving consequence management activities. To 
improve the effectiveness of training for such situations the 
committee encourages the Department to continue efforts to 
harness the collective talents of industry and academia, and to 
introduce technological innovation at the earliest phases of 
doctrinal and acquisition development. The committee urges the 
Department to apply these techniques to military law 
enforcement, chemical-biological management and training, mine 
and unexploded ordnance mitigation, non-lethal weaponry, and 
other engineering disciplines. The committee strongly supports 
efforts to improve these capabilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 
62716A for training-based collaborative research.

Unmanned rotorcraft risk reduction demonstrations

    The budget request contained $55.0 million in PE 62618A for 
ballistics technology, but contained no funds for the DP-5X 
unmanned helicopter for testing advanced blades, engines, 
weapons and tail boom technologies.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.8 million in PE 
62618A to procure DP-5X rotorcraft test aircraft.

Warfighter Information Network--Tactical

    The budget request contained $222.3 million in PE 63782A 
for continued development of the Warfighter Information 
Network--Tactical (WIN-T).
    The committee expressed a concern regarding the lack of 
coordination and potential capability overlap between the WIN-T 
program and the Joint Network Node (JNN) program in the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364). The WIN-T program continues to experience 
unclear requirements, schedule changes, cost growth, and high-
risk technology development challenges. In addition, on March 
5, 2007 the committee received notification of a Nunn-McCurdy 
cost growth breach for the WIN-T program. The Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is 
required to make a final decision on the future of the WIN-T 
program by June 5, 2007. The committee also notes that the Army 
has now committed to field the JNN system, a system that 
provides a similar capability to that planned for the WIN-T 
system, to the entire Army.
    The committee recommends $120.0 million in PE 63782A, a 
decrease of $102.3 million for the WIN-T program. The committee 
urges the Army to stabilize the WIN-T program and place it on a 
schedule that more realistically addresses the Army's 
substantial existing and planned investment in the JNN system. 
The committee also urges the Army to consider using the WIN-T 
program to upgrade existing JNN equipment using incremental 
improvements to bring the WIN-T program's mobile networking 
capability to the Army as soon as possible. The committee also 
urges the Army to consolidate its oversight and management of 
the JNN and WIN-T programs to better manage the path toward a 
single future battlefield network capability.

            Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $17.1 billion for Navy 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $17.3 billion, an increase of 
$258.1 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


76mm super rapid medium caliber gun system

    The budget request contained $31.0 million in PE 63795N for 
land attack technology, but contained no funds for continued 
testing of the 76mm super rapid medium caliber gun system.
    The committee believes this system may advance the 
threshold of superiority for medium caliber gun systems on 
naval vessels and creates a competitive environment for future 
procurement of medium caliber gun systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63795N for continued testing of the 76mm super rapid medium 
caliber gun system.

Advanced materials for acoustic window applications.

    The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 25620N for 
surface anti-submarine warfare combat system integration, but 
contained no funds for advanced materials for acoustic window 
applications.
    The committee remains concerned over the failure of 
existing sonar array windows on surface vessels. Therefore, the 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to begin a 
developmental program using advanced composite materials. This 
program should combine numerical analysis techniques with large 
scale testing.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
25620N for advanced materials for acoustic window applications.

Advanced non-lethal hail and warning laser system

    The budget request contained $10.9 million in PE 63651M for 
joint non-lethal weapons technology development, but contained 
no funds for the enhancement of the non-lethal hail and warning 
laser system.
    The committee recognizes the Marine Corps' need to signal 
and hail vehicles at increased operational ranges. The 
committee encourages the Marine Corps to identify and integrate 
new laser technologies and techniques in its hail and warning 
devices such that range is increased and eye safety is improved 
for both civilian and military personnel.
    The committee recommends $17.9 million, an increase of $7.0 
million in PE 63651M for the enhancement of the non-lethal hail 
and warning laser system.

Affordable Weapon System

    The budget request contained $31.0 million in PE 63795N for 
land attack technology, but contained no funds for the 
Affordable Weapon System (AWS).
    The committee understands that AWS is an advanced 
technology initiative to design, develop, and produce a 
precision guided weapon similar to existing missile systems. 
Launched by a small rocket booster and powered in flight by a 
small turbojet engine, AWS is designed to carry a 200-pound 
warhead to a target over 600 hundred miles away, and could 
support the Navy triad of fires concept for combat operations 
in the littorals. During previous flight testing, AWS 
demonstrated line-of-sight communications and could have the 
potential to communicate with ground control stations using 
beyond line-of-sight satellite data links. The concept of AWS 
employment is to fly directly to its target guided by the 
Global Positioning System, or loiter for several hours until a 
forward observer commands it to a target. AWS could be adapted 
to a variety of launch platforms and payloads, and could offer 
a unique opportunity to leverage commercial off-the-shelf 
technologies and systems engineering principles to rapidly 
produce and deploy an affordable loitering cruise missile.
    The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 
63795N for AWS.

Age exploration model

    The budget request contained $100.3 million in PE 25633N 
for the development of various aviation-related improvements, 
but contained no funds for development of age exploration 
model.
    The age exploration model is being developed to understand 
connections between aircraft age, reliability, maintainability, 
and readiness to provide the Department of the Navy with a tool 
for understanding, predicting, and communicating impacts of 
decisions to extend aircraft service lives, and for mitigating 
risks associated with these decisions. The committee notes that 
development of the age exploration model was initiated by the 
Department of the Navy in fiscal year 2002; the Department of 
the Navy requested and Congress authorized and appropriated 
$2.9 million for fiscal year 2005; and the committee 
understands that these funds are currently being used to 
complete development of a prototype predictive information 
technology-based model. The committee understands that efforts 
thus far have proven the tool's mathematical foundation and 
provided a viable operational tool for engineering analysis. 
The committee believes that the age exploration model should be 
employed in the Department of the Navy's intermediate- and 
depot-level aircraft maintenance facilities, and understands 
that the age exploration model could be enhanced for use on 
other platform domains such as ships and support vehicles.
    The committee recommends $103.3 million, an increase of 
$3.0 million in PE 25633N to enhance the age exploration model 
for use on other platform domains, and to further develop the 
age exploration model so that it can be used in the Department 
of the Navy's intermediate- and depot-level aircraft 
maintenance facilities.

Blossom Point Satellite facility

    The budget request contained $93.4 million in PE 62235N, 
but contained no funds for the Blossom Point Satellite 
facility.
    The Blossom Point Satellite facility provides 24 hour 
command and control support to low-earth and mid-earth orbiting 
satellites.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62235N for the Blossom Point Satellite facility.

Countermine light imaging detection and ranging undersea autonomous 
        vehicle based system

    The budget request contained $49.7 million in PE 63114N, 
but contained no funds to continue the countermine light 
imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) unmanned aerial vehicle 
(UAV)-based system (CLUBS).
    On going CLUBS efforts include programming efforts to 
produce high resolution images of the seafloor. Further funding 
in this area will allow continuance of ongoing algorithm and 
software development to achieve detection and classification of 
targets of interest.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 
63114N to continue the development of CLUBS.

Critical composite technologies for special operations forces medium 
        range endurance craft

    The budget request contained $70.9 million in PE 63123N, 
but contained no funds for the development of critical 
composite technologies for Special Operations Forces medium-
range endurance craft.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
63123N for research and development to reduce technical risk 
associated with the use of composite technologies for larger 
craft.

DDG 1000 permanent magnet motor system

    The budget request contained $503.4 million in PE 64300N 
for DDG 1000 total ships systems engineering, but contained no 
funds for continued development of the permanent magnet motor.
    The committee understands that the permanent magnet motor 
technology will save weight and increase fuel efficiency in the 
next generation of surface combatants, including the DDG 1000.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 
64300N to complete design of the motor and motor control 
electronics.

Deep extended echo ranging

    The budget request contained $18.4 million in PE 64261N for 
acoustic search sensors.
    The committee commends the Navy's commitment to research 
into acoustic detection capabilities in broad area deep ocean 
environments. The committee understands that using existing 
sonobuoy capability coupled with new software and processing 
systems has the potential to significantly increase the ability 
to detect contacts using only acoustic means in broad areas of 
the deep ocean.
    To meet this goal, the committee recommends an increase of 
$2.0 million in PE 64261N for development and testing of the 
deep extended echo ranging system.

Diagnostic/prognostic pump system

    The budget request contained $9.5 million in PE 63513N, but 
contained no funds for a diagnostic/prognostic pump system.
    The committee understands that a pump system with internal 
diagnostic capabilities provides an invaluable aid for 
proactive maintenance, eliminating the need to perform 
conditional assessments via planned maintenance. In addition, 
the system will provide savings on inventory and reduce the 
need for redundant systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63513N for the development of a two-screw magnetic drive pump 
system with diagnostic/prognostic capability.

DP-2 vectored thrust aircraft

    The budget request contained $49.7 million in PE 63114N for 
the development of various power projection advanced technology 
programs, but contained no funds for the DP-2 vectored thrust 
aircraft program.
    The DP-2 is a twin-engine, vectored thrust, high-speed 
combat transport aircraft capable of hover and vertical take-
off and landing. The committee believes that the DP-2 has the 
potential to provide leap-ahead capabilities to Special 
Operations Forces and other forces since it can combine 
vertical take-off and landing capabilities of a helicopter with 
the superior range and payload characteristics of fixed-wing 
jet aircraft. The committee understands that to date DP-2 
testing has focused on milestones set by the Office of Naval 
Research, which include hover out of ground effect and mild 
hover maneuvers, but believes testing should be expanded to 
include flight in a conventional forward-thrust mode.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63114N for the DP-2 vectored thrust program, and expects that 
these funds will provide for forward-thrust mode testing, 
structural loads testing, continued hover testing, and to 
obtain an experimental aircraft type certificate from the 
Federal Aviation Administration.

Fiber optic technology

    The budget request contained $134.9 million in PE 63561N 
for advanced submarine system design.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63561N to continue research and development of promising fiber 
optic technology for development of advanced fiber optic 
acoustic systems.

Free electron laser development for naval applications

    The budget request contained $10.0 million in PE 62114N for 
Power Projection Applied Research. The committee believes that 
this research is critical to advanced technologies which might 
employ high energy lasers.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
62114N to further the development of this important new 
technology.

High temperature superconducting motor

    The budget request contained $9.5 million in PE 63513N for 
shipboard system component development, but contained no funds 
for the continued testing of the high temperature 
superconducting motor.
    The committee commends the Navy for funding the development 
of this critical technology, but remains concerned that no 
funds were requested for final full load testing and for design 
modifications, which allow the motor to be compatible with the 
shipboard environment. The committee views funding for the 
development of both the permanent magnet motor and the high-
temperature superconducting motor to be in the best interest of 
the future naval force.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 
63513N for full load testing and design modifications for the 
high temperature superconducting motor.

Hybrid-electric drive systems

    The budget request contained $9.5 million in PE 63513N for 
shipboard system component development, but contained no funds 
for development of a hybrid electric motor for use during the 
modernization of DDG 51 class destroyers.
    The committee understands that development of this 
technology would have significant benefits to the efficiency of 
the ships propulsion system and may save thousands of gallons 
of fuel yearly.
    The committee recommends and increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63513N to investigate multiple technologies to develop and 
field a hybrid electric drive system.

Improved corrosion protection for electromagnetic aircraft launch 
        system

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 62234N for 
improved corrosion protection for the electromagnetic aircraft 
launch system (EMALS).
    The committee understands that the EMALS currently 
scheduled to be fielded on the Ford class aircraft carriers 
must operate in a highly corrosive environment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62234N to fund a program to develop design-specific corrosion 
data under simulated catapult conditions to allow continued 
design refinement to mitigate the effect of the corrosive 
environment on EMALS operation.

Joint Stand-Off Weapon-Extended Range

    The budget request contained $31.0 million in PE 63795N for 
the development of various land attack technology programs, but 
contained no funds for flight demonstration of the joint stand-
off weapon (JSOW)-extended range (ER).
    The JSOW is a 1,000-pound, air-to-surface precision strike 
glide weapon that can carry several different lethal packages 
with a stand-off range of 12 to 63 miles. The committee 
understands that the integration of an engine into the JSOW 
would result in a weapon known as the JSOW-ER, which would 
substantially increase stand-off attack range capabilities at a 
lower cost than similar weapons.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63795N for a JSOW-ER flight demonstration.

Marine Corps assault vehicles

    The budget request contained $288.0 million in PE 63611M 
for development of the expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV).
    While the committee recognizes the Marine Corps requirement 
to conduct amphibious assaults and land operations using 
armored vehicles, it is concerned that the EFV program 
continues to have unclear requirements and serious technology 
development challenges. The committee supports efforts by 
senior Marine Corps, Navy, and Department of Defense (DOD) 
leaders to thoroughly review the EFV program, analyze its 
requirements, and assess its engineering and design challenges. 
The committee also notes that the EFV program received $347.8 
million in fiscal year 2007 funding, which was based on 
continued research and development that has now been suspended 
pending the outcome of DOD reviews of the program, making it 
unlikely that the full $347.8 million will be obligated or 
executed in fiscal year 2007. In addition, the committee notes 
that the schedule for the new system development and 
demonstration phase proposed in Marine Corps budget 
justification materials is likely to be further delayed.
    The committee recommends $88.0 million, a decrease of 
$200.0 million in PE 63611M for EFV development. The committee 
believes that this amount, in addition to the excess funds 
provided in fiscal year 2007, are sufficient to support 
continued engineering work and development of EFV prototypes in 
fiscal year 2008.

Maritime identification surveillance technology

    The budget request contained $40.8 million in PE 63235N for 
common picture advanced technology, but contained no funds for 
development of a demonstration project of a maritime 
identifications surveillance system.
    The committee understands that the development of high-
resolution, imaging phased array radar systems provide 
significant promise in the identification, surveillance, and 
tracking of all contacts in and around naval vessels at sea, in 
coastal waters, and ports.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 
63235N for the development of a demonstration project in 
support of a maritime identification surveillance system.

MK-48 torpedo technology development

    The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 25632N for 
MK-48 torpedo advanced capability (TADCAP) development, but 
contained no funds for a post-launch communication system for 
use in the littorals.
    The committee understands that the Chief of Naval 
Operations has stressed that successful operations in shallow 
water is critical to countering third world diesel submarine 
threats. Torpedo testing in shallow water has demonstrated that 
in-service MK-48 TADCAP has less than full capability in a 
shallow water engagement environment. The committee notes that 
traditional weighted and hollow flexible-hose and guidance wire 
communications technologies cannot satisfy future operating 
environment requirements, and that a high bandwidth post-launch 
communications system is needed to ensure the MK-48 TADCAP is 
able to meet requirements in the littoral environment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
25632N for development of a post-launch communication system 
for the MK-48 TADCAP.

Propulsor manufacturing technology development

    The budget request contained $9.5 million in PE 63513N for 
shipboard systems component development but contained no funds 
for propulsor manufacturing technology development (PMTD).
    The PMTD program is pursuing new technologies and 
manufacturing process to introduce Nickel Boron (NiB) coatings 
for propellers, water jets, and submarine propulsors. These 
coatings have the potential to significantly reduce fouling, 
drag, cavitation, and wear, which will increase ship fuel 
efficiency and reduce life cycle maintenance costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million in PE 
63513N for PMTD.

Reliable Replacement Warhead

    The budget request contained $81.4 million in PE 11221N for 
strategic submarine and weapons systems support, and containing 
$30.0 million specifically for the Reliable Replacement Warhead 
(RRW) program.
    The Navy budget justification material describes the RRW 
funds as enabling the Navy to ``continue the RRW Program into 
Phase 3 Engineering Development.'' In Title XXXI of this Act, 
the committee decreases funding for execution of the RRW 
program by the National Nuclear Security Administration. The 
committee does not support moving into Phase 3 activities 
during fiscal year 2008, but understands that the Navy intends 
to pursue better design definition as part of the Phase 2a 
study during fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $56.4 million in PE 11221N, a 
decrease of $25.0 million for the RRW program.

Rotorcraft external airbag system

    The budget request contained $6.3 million in PE 63216N for 
aviation survivability development, but contained no funds for 
development of a rotorcraft external air bag system (REAPS) for 
helicopters.
    The committee notes that Congress appropriated $2.7 million 
in fiscal year 2006 and $2.9 million in fiscal year 2007 for 
the development of a rotorcraft external airbag system. Current 
testing has demonstrated that REAPS application for rotorcraft 
will require larger airbags integrated into the aircraft and 
will be enhanced by the development of a predictive crash 
sensors and algorithms. The committee understands that REAPS 
should increase overall aircrew survivability during a 
rotorcraft ground or water crash or unintentional hard landing.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63216N for REAPS.

Seafighter

    The budget request contained $70.8 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology, but contained no funding 
for Seafighter (formerly X-Craft).
    Seafighter is a high speed, shallow draft advanced 
technology demonstration vessel that has been used to validate 
many of the Navy's operational concepts for littoral warfare 
and mitigate risk for future acquisition programs, including 
the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The committee notes that 
in fiscal year 2007 Congress authorized and appropriated funds 
to begin the process of upgrading Seafighter to a condition, 
which would allow the ship to deploy in support of urgent 
combatant commander requirements.
    The committee understands the Navy intends to home port the 
vessel in Panama City, Florida, with a contracted civilian 
crew, and use the vessel for experimental purposes. The 
committee believes this plan fails to take full advantage of 
the capabilities of this vessel. The committee notes that the 
Navy currently operates the High Speed Vessel (HSV-2), a high 
speed, wave piercing aluminum hulled catamaran, under contract 
with Australia. This vessel has been used by the Navy in 
development, risk mitigation, and deployed operations. The 
committee recommends that the Navy transition Seafighter to 
those tasks when the HSV-2 lease expires in July 2007.
    The committee recommends an increase of $22.0 million for 
PE 63123N to continue modifications to Seafighter including, 
the addition of offensive and defensive armament, the 
improvement of ship survivability systems, and the completion 
of command and control, hull, mechanical, and electrical 
upgrades.

Software reconfigurable payloads

    The budget request contained $86.9 million in PE 64231N for 
tactical command systems, but contained no funds for software 
reconfigurable payloads.
    FORCEnet is the Navy and Marine Corps' premiere initiative 
to implement network centric operations. The software 
reconfigurable payload capability will assist in the 
development of the FORCEnet architecture by providing multi-
mission communications and intelligence, surveillance and 
reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities; dynamic bandwidth 
allocation; real-time reprogrammability to support changing 
tactical situations; and interoperability with joint, allied 
and coalition forces.
    The committee recommends $91.9 million, an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 64231N to develop robust and reconfigurable 
communications packages to support Navy and Marine Corps 
applications.

Tactical e-field buoy development program

    The budget request contained $16.7 million in PE 63254N for 
antisubmarine warfare (ASW) systems development, but contained 
no funds for a tactical electric (E) field buoy development 
program.
    The committee believes that countering the ASW threat in 
the littoral ocean environment will require a variety of 
systems and platforms. The committee understands that E-field 
detecting buoys have shown promising results against 
challenging targets at a tactically significant range in at-sea 
testing.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for PE 
63254N for development and testing of an affordable E-field 
buoy that is capable of detecting challenging targets in 
acoustically difficult littoral waters, and is compatible with 
existing Navy air deployment systems.

Virtual medical education

    The budget request contained $88.3 million in PE 62236N for 
warfighter sustainment applied research, but contained no funds 
for virtual reality technologies to improve medical education.
    The committee is concerned that as the number of casualties 
from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom 
grows, the need for proficient and experienced medical 
professionals to care for wounded warriors is more important 
than ever. One method for maintaining a high degree of clinical 
expertise in a supportive, low-stress environment is to provide 
experiential learning tools generated by game-based modeling 
and simulation technologies. Such virtual game-based modeling 
and simulation technologies offer efficiencies by combining 
classroom education techniques with skills-based learning to 
link the education experience with performance.
    The committee recommends $103.3 million, an increase of 
$15.0 million in PE 62236N to create and deploy cutting-edge 
training technologies designed to improve the readiness and 
ensure a trained workforce in military medicine.

         Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $26.7 billion for Air Force 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $25.7 billion, a decrease of 
$973.0 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft Demonstration

    The budget request contained $64.9 million in PE 63211F for 
aerospace technology development and demonstration, containing 
$35.0 million for the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft 
Demonstration program.
    The committee notes that the program is not adequately 
linked to requirements for future military aircraft, nor has 
the program been structured to effectively capitalize on 
previous technology development programs, such as the 
Composites Affordability Initiative.
    The committee recommends $29.9 million, a decrease of $35.0 
million in PE 63211F for the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft 
Demonstration program.

Advanced Extremely High Frequency 4

    The budget request contained $603.2 million in PE 63430F 
for Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) procurement.
    The committee is concerned about the fragility of the 
current constellation of protected communication satellites 
used by the warfighter. Delays in the development and fielding 
of the Transformational Satellite Communications (TSAT) program 
could result in a gap in global strategic communications 
coverage.
    The committee believes that an additional AEHF satellite 
can provide adequate near-term connectivity without risking a 
gap in protected communications capability and coverage. As a 
result of these concerns, the committee recommends procuring an 
additional AEHF satellite.
    The committee recommends $703.2 million, an increase of 
$100.0 million, for parts obsolescence studies for AEHF 4.

Airborne Signals Intelligence Enterprise

    The budget request contained $139.6 million in PE 34260F 
for the airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) enterprise, 
containing $10.9 million for the Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial 
System (UAS). The budget request also contained $298.5 million 
in PE 35220F for the Global Hawk UAS.
    The committee is aware that the Airborne SIGINT Enterprise 
continues to provide non-recurring engineering for SIGINT 
equipment for the Global Hawk UAS. The committee is concerned 
that the research and development request in PE 34260F for the 
SIGINT capability on board the Global Hawk UAS duplicates the 
request in PE 35220F.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $128.7 million, a 
decrease of $10.9 million in PE 34260F for the airborne SIGINT 
payload for the Global Hawk UAS.

Alternate infrared satellite system

    The budget requests contained $230.9 million in PE 64443F 
for development of the Alternate Infrared Satellite System 
(AIRSS).
    The committee is concerned with the current AIRSS 
acquisition strategy. This system was initially conceived as a 
low-technical risk system in case the current missile warning 
system being developed did not perform to expectations. The 
AIRSS program now includes significant technology development 
and a flight test demonstration; both activities add additional 
risk to the program and have little benefit in the near-term. 
Furthermore, the system requirements are ill defined and the 
committee is concerned that the cost and schedule estimates are 
optimistic.
    With the success achieved by the Space Based Infrared 
System highly elliptical orbit payload in 2007, the committee 
believes the AIRSS development program is premature.
    The committee recommends $30.0 million in PE 64443F to 
support continued development of wide field-of-view focal plane 
technology, a decrease of $200.9 million to the AIRSS program.

B-2 Small Diameter Bomb integration

    The budget request contained $244.1 million in PE 64240F 
for the B-2 bomber, but contained no funds for integration of 
the small diameter bomb (SDB).
    The committee understands the Air Force has identified a 
requirement to effectively engage and destroy moving targets, 
but that global positioning system weapons have a limited 
ability to prosecute moving targets. The committee notes that 
with further research and development the SDB could have the 
potential to engage moving targets and the Chief of Staff of 
the Air Force has included integration of the SDB on the B-2 
platform as an unfunded priority.
    The committee recommends $251.3 million, an increase of 
$7.2 million in PE 64240F for development and integration of 
the SDB for the B-2 bomber.

Biostatic protective clothing

    The budget request contained $5.2 million in PE 48011F for 
special tactics/combat control, but contained no funds for 
biostatic protective clothing.
    The committee understands Air Force Special Operations 
Command (AFSOC) special tactics teams and forward combat air 
controllers operate in harsh environments and conditions that 
require extreme physical exertion for extended periods of time. 
The committee is aware that recent developments in clothing 
technology indicate better materials are available for 
undergarments which will reduce the effects of moisture on the 
body as well as provide superior antimicrobial characteristics. 
The committee believes these materials could benefit the combat 
airman and consequently improve performance in prolonged harsh 
combat conditions.
    The committee recommends $7.9 million, an increase of $2.7 
million in PE 48011F for the rapid development and fielding of 
biostatic protective clothing for AFSOC.

C-130 airlift squadrons

    The budget request contained $188.1 million in PE 41115F 
for C-130 development programs, but contained no funds for 
development of the automated inspection, repair, corrosion and 
aircraft tracking (AIRCAT) system.
    The AIRCAT system develops tools for collection and 
analysis of data for the purpose of instituting a condition-
based maintenance (CBM) program on the C-130 aircraft. The 
committee understands CBM techniques are used in many aviation 
activities because they improve fleet maintenance planning and 
management, improve safety through a better awareness of flight 
worthiness, and reduce total ownership costs. The committee 
also understands that the Department of the Air Force has 
invested over $10.0 million on this effort to date, and 
believes that this program should be continued.
    The committee recommends $195.2 million, an increase of 
$7.1 million, in PE 41115F for C-130 development programs for 
the AIRCAT system.

California Space Infrastructure Project

    The budget request contained no funds for California Space 
Infrastructure Project.
    This program will continue to assess existing space 
infrastructure, Air Force space requirements, and gaps in space 
infrastructure.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
35159F for the continued support of the California Space 
Infrastructure Project.

Combat search and recovery vehicle

    The budget request contained $290.1 million in PE 64261F 
for the development of personnel recovery systems, containing 
280.0 million for the combat search and rescue vehicle-X (CSAR-
X) development program.
    The CSAR-X program is developing the next generation 
personnel recovery vehicle, which will replace the current HH-
60G Pave Hawk helicopter, and provide increased capabilities of 
speed, range survivability, cabin size, and high-altitude hover 
operations. The Department of the Air Force anticipated 
beginning CSAR-X integration and demonstration activities in 
early fiscal year 2007, but these activities have been delayed 
by bid protests, which were subsequently sustained, and will 
require the Department of the Air Force to re-solicit bids for 
the CSAR-X program. As a result of this delay, the committee 
notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported 
that this program exceeds the fiscal year 2008 requirements by 
$153.3 million. The committee further notes that the Department 
of the Air Force CSAR-X program office agreed with the GAO 
recommendation that the CSAR-X budget request could be reduced 
by $153.3 million.
    The committee recommends $136.8 million, a decrease of 
$153.3 million, in PE 64261F for the CSAR-X development 
program.

Communications support environment

    The budget request did not contain funds in PE 27277F for 
the Hawaii National Guard communications support environment 
(HCSE) program.
    The HCSE program would be a new program that would develop 
and demonstrate a robust and integrated information sharing and 
communications capability necessary to coordinate the 
activities of military, civilian, and interagency authorities 
in the event of a homeland security or homeland defense crisis 
event in the state of Hawaii. The committee notes that the 
National Guard Bureau is pursuing validation of the Joint 
Continental United States Communications Support Environment 
(JCCSE) program, which extends trusted information capabilities 
from the Department of Defense, through the Joint Force 
Headquarters in the states, to an incident site during a crisis 
event, and understands that the JCCSE will provide increased 
communications necessary for information exchange; direct 
communications among first responders, state and national 
authorities; and deployable communications. The committee 
believes that the capabilities of the JCCSE should be extended 
to the state of Hawaii with the HCSE.
    The committee recommends $3.0 million in PE 27277F for the 
HCSE.

Electro-magnetic interference grid fabrication technology

    The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 63112F for 
the development of various advanced materials for weapons, but 
contained no funds for development of electro-magnetic 
interference (EMI) grid fabrication technology.
    The committee understands that the F-35 requires sensor 
suite windows that are integrated into the aircraft's fuselage, 
which will exhibit precise EMI shielding characteristics 
through the use of shielding grids on those sensor surfaces. 
Such EMI shielding would allow the F-35's sensors to function 
in the presence of EMI. However, the committee further 
understands that there are significant challenges in the 
fabrication of EMI shielding grids, and no domestic commercial 
vendors are currently capable of EMI shielding grid production.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63112F to develop fabrication and coating technologies for the 
production of high-precision EMI shielding grids that exhibit 
performance stability over time and when subject to changing 
temperatures.

EMP immune computer hardware

    The budget request contained no funds for the Carbon 
Nanotube-based Radiation Hard Non-Volatile RAM program.
    This program will develop more reliable electronics for 
military applications.
    The committee recommends an increase $2.0 million in PE 
34111F for the Carbon Nanotube-based Radiation Hard Non-
Volatile RAM program.

Enhanced smart triple ejector rack

    The budget request contained $17.0 million in PE 65011F for 
development of various products and services to improve the 
performance of aging aircraft systems, but contained no funds 
to expedite the development of and to initiate low-rate initial 
production (LRIP) activities for the enhanced smart triple 
ejector rack (ESTER) program.
    The ESTER program is developing an upgrade to the triple 
ejector rack-9A (TER-9A), which is currently used on the 
Department of the Air Force's A-10 and F-16 fleets. The 
committee understands that the TER-9A is unable to carry 
precision-guided munitions (PGMs) such as the joint direct 
attack munition or the wind-corrected munitions dispenser, but 
that the ESTER upgrade would allow the carriage of up to three 
PGMs on each of the A-10 and F-16 weapons carriage stations. 
The committee also understands that the Department of the Air 
Force has an immediate requirement to increase PGM carrying 
capacity of its A-10 and F-16 fleets, and believes that the 
ESTER program will meet this requirement.
    The committee recommends $21.5 million, an increase of $4.5 
million in PE 65011F to expedite the development of and to 
initiate LRIP activities for the ESTER program.

Global Positioning System IIF, satellites 13-15

    The budget request contained $120.9 million in PE 35165F 
for Global Positioning System (GPS) IIF.
    The GPS constellation currently supports the military as 
well as civil and commercial endeavors around the world. The 
committee recognizes the importance of maintaining this 
capability without the possibility of a gap due to the large 
number of users relying on the GPS system. The committee also 
understands the desire to include new capabilities such as more 
accurate position and timing data, anti-jam, and a new civil 
signal compatible with the European positioning system Galileo.
    However, the committee believes the strength of the GPS 
systems is in the continuity of operations and availability of 
the GPS signals. The committee considers procuring additional 
GPS IIF satellites as the best solution for maintaining the GPS 
capability used by the warfighter. In addition, this 
recommendation will allow for the ground system and user 
equipment to leverage the capabilities resident on the 
satellites.
    The committee recommends $160.9 million, an increase of 
$40.0 million to conduct parts obsolescence studies for GPS 
satellites 13-15.

Global Positioning System III

    The budget request contained $587.2 million in PE 63421F 
for Global Positioning System (GPS) III satellite system.
    The committee is aware that the Under Secretary of the Air 
Force is taking steps to develop a block approach for 
development and fielding of the next-generation GPS satellite 
constellation. However, the committee is concerned by the Air 
Force's decision to pursue a new acquisition and competition 
before resolving the problems on the current GPS IIF program. 
In addition, the committee questions the operational utility of 
the proposed GPS III systems when current (M-Code) capabilities 
cannot be used by the warfighter due to delays in the user 
equipment and ground systems upgrades. Furthermore, the 
committee is concerned about the delay in fielding the ground 
system to command and control the current GPS constellation and 
recommends the Department of the Air Force focus resources on 
enhancing this system to effectively use space-based 
capabilities.
    The committee notes the need for future enhancements such 
as cross-links, anti-jam capabilities, and more accurate 
clocks. The committee recommends the Department of the Air 
Force pursue technology maturation and risk-mitigation efforts 
on these areas for inclusion on a future evolution of the GPS 
IIF satellite system.
    The committee recommends $437.2 million, a decrease of 
$150.0 million, in PE 63421F to the GPS III program.

Global Positioning System modernized user equipment

    The budget request contained $93.3 million in PE 35165F for 
Global Positioning System (GPS) modernized user equipment 
(MUE).
    However, the budget request contained no funds for 
continued competition in this program that will provide the 
Department of Defense (DOD) with a more robust capability to 
operate in a projected threat environment.
    The United States maintains GPS for the benefit of military 
and civilian users worldwide. Military dependence on this 
system continues to grow at a rapid rate and now covers ground, 
sea, air, and space users. Increasingly, GPS is being targeted 
by systems capable of jamming the signal, denying the use of 
the GPS constellation. The DOD's strategy for combating this 
jamming has been to develop the (M-Code) signal and 
corresponding user equipment highly resistant to GPS jamming. 
M-Code is already being transmitted from space and the Air 
Force is moving toward a full constellation on-orbit; however, 
user equipment development is lagging behind.
    Furthermore, the committee notes the budget request did not 
allocate sufficient funding to support the requirements of the 
current MUE received card development contracts, which were 
originally intended to preserve the industrial base, mature the 
information assurance approach, and reduce the total ownership 
cost to the government for next generation receivers. This 
action will significantly impact the GPS user equipment 
industrial base and will fail to provide the user with the best 
technical, cost effective solution for position, navigation, 
guidance, and identification.
    The committee recommends $156.5 million, an increase of 
$63.2 million in PE 35165F to support accelerated development 
of user equipment.

High Accuracy Network Determination System

    The budget request contained no funds for High Accuracy 
Network Determination System (HANDS).
    HANDS addresses critical space situational awareness needs 
and reduces the potential for collisions of space assets by 
reducing errors in the current space-object maintenance 
catalog, as well as supplements the catalog with system 
characterization information.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63444F for the HANDS program.

High Integrity Global Positioning Systems

    The budget requests contained $70.0 million in PE 63422F 
and $10.0 million in PE 1160403BB for development of the 
capabilities associated with the High Integrity Global 
Positioning System also called iGPS.
    The funds have been directed to develop receivers using the 
iGPS constellation concept of integrating signals from the 
Iridium constellation with the GPS constellation creating 
better timing and accuracy, and some potential anti-jam 
capabilities. The benefits of this approach have not been 
sufficiently proven and the committee does not recommend 
funding either of these requests.
    The committee recommends no funds in PE 63422F and in PE 
1160403BB for development of the capabilities associated with 
the High Integrity Global Positioning System.

Inductive thermography inspection equipment

    The budget request contained $203.6 million in PE 41119F 
for C-5 airlift squadrons, but contained no funds for inductive 
thermography inspection equipment.
    The committee understands that C-5 aircraft are 
experiencing cracks in the upper aft crown skin and the aft 
section of the torque deck. Traditional non-destructive 
inspection (NDI) techniques are costly and time intensive for 
maintenance personnel. The committee notes that alternative NDI 
techniques used by Air Force maintenance personnel on other 
aircraft, such as inductive thermography, can be more cost 
effective to detect weaknesses in airframe structures. However, 
inductive thermography equipment has not been developed for 
inspections on C-5 aircraft.
    The committee recommends $205.6 million, an increase of 
$2.0 million in PE 41119F for C-5 airlift squadrons, and for 
development of inductive thermography equipment for C-5 
aircraft.

Intelligent Free Space Optical Satellite Communications Node

    The budget request contained no funds for the Intelligent 
Free Space Optical Satellite Communications Node program.
    The Intelligent Free Space Optical Satellite Communications 
node can support the development of light-weight, low-cost, 
space qualified laser communications hardware.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63401F for continued development of the Intelligent Free Space 
Optical Satellite Communications Node.

Joint Strike Fighter

    The budget request contained $1.8 billion in PE 64800F, and 
$1.7 billion in PE 64800N, for development of the Joint Strike 
Fighter (JSF), but contained no funds for development of a 
competitive JSF propulsion system.
    The competitive JSF propulsion system program is developing 
the F136 engine, which would provide a competitive alternative 
to the currently-planned F135 engine. In the committee report 
(H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the committee 
recommended an increase for the JSF competitive propulsion 
system, and notes that the other three congressional defense 
committees also recommended increases for this purpose. Section 
211 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) required that the 
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Department of Defense 
Cost Analysis Improvement Group, the Comptroller General, and a 
federally funded research and development center each provide 
an independent lifecycle cost analysis of the JSF propulsion 
system, which would include a competitive engine program by 
March 15, 2007. On March 22, 2007, the Subcommittees on Air and 
Land Forces and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces held a 
hearing, which included witnesses from the Department of 
Defense, the Institute for Defense Analyses, and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), to receive testimony regarding 
their findings on the JSF propulsion system. The committee 
believes the results of these studies were, in the aggregate, 
inconclusive on whether there would be a financial benefit to 
the Department in continuing to develop a competitive 
propulsion system for the JSF program. However, the committee 
notes that all studies identified significant non-financial 
factors of a two-engine competitive program, which include: 
better engine performance; improved contractor responsiveness; 
a more robust industrial base; increased engine reliability; 
and improved operational readiness. The committee believes that 
the benefits, which could be derived from the non-financial 
factors, favor continuing the JSF competitive propulsion system 
program, and recommends an increase of $480.0 million for this 
purpose.
    The committee recommends $1.8 billion in PE 64800N, an 
increase of $115.0 million, and directs that $240.0 million of 
the recommended funds be used for the competitive JSF 
propulsion system program; and $1.9 billion in PE 64800F, an 
increase of $115.0 million, and directs that $240.0 of the 
recommended funds be used for the competitive JSF propulsion 
system program.
    Additionally, the committee recommends a provision (section 
213) that would require the Secretary of Defense to obligate 
sufficient annual amounts to develop and procure a competitive 
propulsion system for the JSF program, in order to conduct a 
competitive propulsion source selection, from funds 
appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations or 
otherwise made available for research, development, test, and 
evaluation, and procurement for the JSF program. The committee 
notes that current plans for the competitive JSF propulsion 
system would complete the development of the competitive 
propulsion system so that a competition for the JSF propulsion 
would occur in fiscal year 2012 with the sixth lot of low-rate 
initial production aircraft.

KC-X

    The budget request contained $314.5 million in PE 41221F 
for KC-X, the Air Force's next generation aerial refueling 
aircraft and the replacement for the KC-135 aircraft.
    The committee notes that prior year unobligated 
appropriations of $173.5 million are available for execution of 
the KC-X development program. The committee notes that the 
system development and design contract award was expected in 
fiscal year 2007, but has been delayed until fiscal year 2008. 
Further, the request for proposal issued to industry by the Air 
Force on January 30, 2007 identified $250.0 million as the 
likely funding level available for KC-X developmental 
activities in fiscal year 2008. The committee fully supports 
recapitalization of the KC-135 fleet and understands that a 
decrement to the funding request for fiscal year 2008 should 
not have a significant impact to program execution.
    The committee recommends $114.5 million, a decrease of 
$200.0 million in PE 41221F for KC-X development.

Lightweight, compact transmitter for imaging laser radar

    The budget request contained $57.8 million in PE 62602F for 
conventional munitions, but contained no funds for a 
lightweight, compact transmitter for imaging laser radar.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 
62602F for a lightweight, compact transmitter for imaging laser 
radar.

Low emission hybrid electric engine propulsion

    The budget request contained $11.0 million in PE 78611F for 
support systems development, but contained no funds for the 
testing of low-emission and fuel-efficient hybrid electric 
engine propulsion systems for Air Force heavy tactical wheeled 
vehicles such as aviation refueling trucks.
    The committee is aware that existing Air Force aviation 
refueling trucks operate over short distances in a manner that 
causes high fuel use, high emissions and decreased engine life.
    The committee notes that a first-generation hybrid electric 
vehicle has been delivered to the Air Force for testing and 
understands this technology could potentially be 40 percent 
more fuel efficient.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
78611F for the continued refinement in system development and 
demonstration of low emission and fuel efficient hybrid 
electric engine propulsion for aviation refueling trucks.

Metals Affordability Initiative

    The budget request contained $39.7 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 government and private sectors of the aerospace 
industry, and providing improved affordability of aerospace 
materials.
    The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million in PE 
63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative.

National Security Space Integration

    The committee reaffirms its belief that the integration of 
black, classified, and white, unclassified, space activities 
enhance national security and provide the best possible suite 
of capabilities to meet the needs of the warfighter, 
intelligence analyst, and policy-maker. Given the challenges 
associated with space acquisitions including the expensive 
nature of modern satellite development programs and a limited 
cadre of space professionals, it is in the national security 
interests of the United States for the black and white space 
communities to work together to coordinate and cooperate on 
space capabilities, technologies, and resources; leverage 
expertise; promote greater information sharing; and minimize 
duplication wherever feasible.
    The committee encourages the Department of the Defense and 
the Intelligence Community to place greater emphasis on black 
and white space integration in the areas of: joint planning and 
acquisition; technology development; operations and greater 
integration across ground architectures; and space professional 
development.

Operationally Responsive Space

    The budget requests contained $87.0 million in PE 64857F 
for development of Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) 
systems.
    The committee acknowledges efforts by the Department of 
Defense to establish an ORS program office and budget resources 
for this mission area. In light of the recent Chinese anti-
satellite test and other growing threats to space, the 
committee reaffirms its support for ORS.
    The committee has provided direction in previous 
legislation that ORS shall consist of low-cost, rapid reaction 
payloads, busses, spacelift, and launch control capabilities. 
The committee is concerned the Department has not balanced the 
resources in the ORS account to address each of these areas, 
with a majority of the request going towards acquisition of 
existing spacelift systems. The committee encourages the 
Department to re-balance the fiscal year 2008 resources across 
existing launch vehicle purchases, responsive launch vehicle 
development, responsive payload and bus development, and 
responsive launch control capabilities.
    In addition, the committee requests the Department continue 
to support joint ORS activities with the services, agencies, 
research labs, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and 
industry as these organizations bring core competencies and 
expertise to the development of ORS capabilities.
    The committee recommends $117.0 million, an increase of $30 
million in PE 64857F for the development efforts associated 
with responsive launch and payload design and testing.

Optical maximum entropy verification

    The budget request contained $108.1 million in PE 62204F 
for aerospace sensors, but contained no funds for enhancing the 
security of the common access card.
    The committee supports the optical maximum entropy 
verification technology, which began as a U.S. Air Force 
demonstration program, and the Genus II open architecture, Java 
programmable terminal, to satisfy several critical military, 
government, and commercial security requirements on a global 
scale.
    The committee recommends $114.1 million, an increase of 
$6.0 million in PE 62204F to produce initial integrated systems 
to address Department of Defense security requirements for the 
Common Access Card. The committee further encourages the Navy 
and Army to consider participation in this program.

Radiation Hardened Electronics

    The budget request contained no funds for the Systematic 
Approach to Radiation Hardened Electronics program.
    The Systematic Approach to Radiation Hardened Electronics 
program will enable accelerated delivery of reliable radiation 
hardened integrated circuits.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 
63401F for the Systematic Approach to Radiation Hardened 
Electronics program.

Rivet Joint Network Interface Growth

    The budget request contained no funds for Rivet Joint 
Network Interface Growth.
    The Rivet Joint Program supports collaboration within the 
Theater Network Geo-location environment and the continued 
development of the Dual Multithreaded Collection Architecture.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
35207F for the Rivet Joint Program.

Satellite Active Imaging National Testbed program

    The budget request contained no funds for the Satellite 
Active Imaging National Testbed (SAINT) program.
    The SAINT program will expand space object identification 
and capabilities analysis of objects in low-earth orbit and 
geosynchronous orbit.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63605F for the SAINT program.

Self-Aware--Space Situation Awareness

    The budget request contained no funds for the Self-Aware--
Space Situational Awareness (SASSA) program.
    The SASSA program will provide additional capability to the 
Space Situational Awareness architecture.
    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 
63438F for the SASSA program.

Space Based Infrared System, geosynchronous satellite 4

    The budget request contained $587.0 million in PE 64441F 
for Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) geosynchronous (GEO) 
satellites.
    The committee is encouraged by the successes achieved from 
SBIRS Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO) system and recommends the 
Department of the Air Force procure SBIRS GEO satellites 4 and 
5.
    The committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to 
conduct parts obsolescence analysis for SBIRS GEO 4.

Space Based Infrared System-High Mission Control System backup

    The budget requests contained $587.0 million in PE 644415F 
for the procurement of the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) 
satellite constellation and ground system.
    The committee supports the upgrade of the Mission Control 
System backup (MCS-B) at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, to 
support full SBIRS operations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $27.6 million in PE 
64441 for the upgrade of SBIRS MCS-B.

Space Control Test Capabilities

    The budget request contained no funds for the Space Control 
Test Capabilities program.
    The Space Test Control Test Capabilities program will 
support the analysis of space control systems to provide the 
most effective architecture.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
64421F for the Space Test Control Test Capabilities program.

Space entrepreneurship

    The budget request contained no funds for Space 
Entrepreneurship.
    The Space Entrepreneurship initiative will support 
partnerships with entrepreneurial space companies and 
universities to accelerate technology that supports the 
aerospace community.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
62601F for Space Entrepreneurship.

Space fence

    The budget request contained $4.1 million in PE 64425F for 
the Space Fence program.
    This program is an integral part of the space situational 
awareness architecture, providing tracking of resident space 
objects.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million in PE 
64425F for the Space Fence program.

Space Situational Awareness

    The budget request contained no funds for the Air Force 
unfunded requirement #22, Classified--Space Situational 
Awareness (SSA) program.
    This program will support the SSA architecture.
    The committee recommends an increase of $95.0 million for 
the Air Force unfunded requirement #22, Classified--Space 
Situational Awareness program.

Strategic airlift transformation and integration modeling

    The budget request contained $11.1 million in PE 78611F for 
support systems development, but contained no funds for 
strategic airlift transformation and integration modeling 
(SATIM).
    The committee understands that the SATIM program seeks to 
improve strategic aircraft availability and reduce total 
ownership costs by identifying maintenance process improvement 
opportunities, inserting technology into recommended solutions, 
and including private industry best practices in maintenance 
tracking and planning at air logistics centers. The committee 
notes that previous SATIM efforts have streamlined and 
automated maintenance processes to reduce manual research and 
lower personnel dwell time on resolving maintenance issues.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
78611F for support systems development for SATIM.

Wideband Global System laser communication integration

    The committee is interested in the possibilities of 
integrating a laser communications packages on Wideband Global 
System satellites. The committee believes pursuing an early 
demonstration and integration of laser communications 
capability will provide a migration path for this critical 
technology into the communications architecture. This approach 
will allow user equipment to experiment with laser 
communication capabilities before a more robust system, like 
the Transformational Communications satellite, is available.

        Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $20.6 billion for Defense-wide 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $20.0 billion, a decrease of 
$598.9 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced energy storage technology initiative

    The budget request contained $9.2 million in PE 63618D8Z 
for joint electronic advanced technology.
    The committee is aware that the Scientific and Technical 
Intelligence Committee of the National Intelligence Council 
issued a report in April, 2006, which judged that the United 
States is increasingly dependent on foreign sources for energy 
storage for consumer and military applications. Further, the 
committee is aware of continuing requirements for innovative 
battery and non-battery power sources for a number of military 
applications. These military applications include power 
generation for soldiers, weapons, vehicles, and installations 
and require energy storage technologies that meet unique 
performance and system integration specifications. The 
committee notes a number of developmental technologies that 
have the potential for meeting the requirements of the military 
services. These include the following: metal separator plates 
for duel-use fuel cell applications; a soldier portable fuel 
cell power system; a solid hydrogen storage and fuel cell 
system; hydrogen fuel cell for a vehicle; an unmanned aerial 
vehicle fuel cell power source; fuel cell cost reduction and 
durability technology; fuel cell hybrid generation system; fuel 
cell manufacturing process; fuel cell power for continuity of 
operations; fuel cell tactical generators; hybrid fuel cells 
for unintended sensors; gallium nitride power technology; 
deployable fuel cell power system; acid alkaline direct 
methanol fuel cell technology; alternate carbon stationary fuel 
cells; solid oxide fuel cells; molten carbonate fuel cells; 
planar solid oxide fuel cell system; alternative energy fuel 
cell power generation; polymer nanocomposites for energy 
storage and pulsed power; remotely monitored fuel cell system; 
carbonate fuel cells; gaseous diffusion layer for soldier 
power; electrolytic super-capacitors; zink air batteries; high 
specific energy rechargeable batteries; lithium ion polymer 
batteries; lithium battery technology; lithium ion battery cell 
production; lithium ion battery integration; modular lithium 
ion energy storage for hybrid vehicles; lithium-iron disulfide 
batteries; battery system development; BB-2560 battery 
replacement; bipolar wafer-cell nickel-metal hydride aircraft 
battery; ceramic membranes; and self sealing plastic for 
military batteries. The committee recommends that such 
technologies be considered for potential research, development, 
testing and/or demonstration funding. The committee recommends 
that the Director of Defense Research and Engineering select a 
technology or technologies on the basis of technical merit, 
cost-effectiveness, and the potential of a particular 
technology to meet service needs.
    The committee recommends $24.2 million, an increase of 
$15.0 million, in PE 63618D8Z for the advanced energy storage 
technology initiative.

Advanced Mission Planning Tools

    The budget request contained $42.3 million for Special 
Operations Tactical Systems Development, but contained no funds 
to improve Flight Performance Models (FPMs) for Advanced 
Mission Planning Tools.
    The committee is aware that existing FPM methodologies date 
back to the early 1990s and may not adequately support current 
and future mission planning requirements Special Operations 
Forces (SOF) aviation. The committee commends efforts to 
address this risk area. The committee notes one solution, which 
strengthens the link between aircraft performance prediction 
and mission planning. The committee has been informed that the 
same solution also includes an attempt to create a more open 
and modular development architecture to accommodate dynamic 
computational algorithms, and promises an improvement in the 
integration of other techniques to model aircraft performance. 
The committee supports such efforts as a means to dramatically 
reduce mission performance calculations.
    As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 11644BB for Advanced Mission Planning Tools for 
SOF aviation.

Airborne network gateway

    The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 63662D8Z 
for networked communications capabilities, containing $20.0 
million for airborne network gateway.
    The airborne network gateway project is sponsored by the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense to increase understanding of 
airborne tactical relays, to assess the maturity of data link, 
network, and voice communications, and to conduct field 
demonstrations to assess military utility. The committee 
believes this effort is redundant with the U.S. Air Force's 
Objective Gateway and feels any work in this area should be 
addressed by the service program so that it will more 
adequately meet service-defined needs.
    The committee recommends $20.0 million, a decrease of $20.0 
million, in PE 63662D8Z for the airborne network gateway.

Ballistic missile defense

    The budget request contained $8.9 billion for the ballistic 
missile defense programs of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
    The committee's recommendations for ballistic missile 
defense programs are based on: (1) the objective of deploying 
systems to defend the United States, our deployed troops and 
allies against real threats; (2) concerns about the 
effectiveness of MDA's operational testing activities; and (3) 
the amount of funding for missile defense programs relative to 
other national defense priorities.
    In the conference report (H. Rept. 109-702) accompanying 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007, the conferees stated that it is the policy of the 
United States that the Department of Defense accord priority 
within the missile defense program to the development, testing, 
fielding, and improvement of effective near-term missile 
defense capabilities, including the ground-based midcourse 
defense system, the Aegis ballistic missile defense system, the 
Patriot PAC-3 system, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 
system, and the sensors necessary to support those systems. For 
a number of years, the committee has been concerned that the 
missile defense program has been too focused on long-term 
research and development efforts at the expense of testing and 
deploying capabilities that defend the United States, deployed 
troops and our allies from current and near-term threats. The 
committee's recommendations accord priority within the budget 
to programs that deliver more near-term capability to the 
warfighter at the expense of several long-term research 
programs.
    The committee believes that missile defense capabilities 
should be operationally tested before deployment. Over the past 
several years, MDA has taken significant steps to improve its 
testing program. These changes resulted in a successful 
intercept test of the ground-based, midcourse defense (GMD) 
system in September 2006, the first successful intercept test 
since 2002. That said, challenges remain with regard to MDA's 
testing program. In a March, 2007 Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) report titled ``Missile Defense Acquisition 
Strategy Generates Results but Delivers Less at Higher Cost,'' 
the GAO stated that while the September 2006 flight test 
exceeded its objectives, ``it is too early to assess whether 
MDA will achieve its overall performance goals for the Block 
2006 fielded configuration. The goal itself has been lowered in 
the past year, and MDA's models and simulations have not yet 
been anchored by sufficient flight tests to have confidence 
that predictions of performance are reliable.'' In testimony 
before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on March 27, 2007, 
the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation stated that ``to 
be confident in my assessment of the effectiveness [of the 
ballistic missile defense system] I need validated models and 
simulations. . . . They don't exist today because MDA doesn't 
have enough flight data to anchor them.''
    Since 1985, the United States has spent over $107.0 billion 
on research, development and deployment of ballistic missile 
defenses. The committee believes that, during this period, MDA 
has been accorded higher priority than other pressing national 
security needs. While the committee recommends robust funding 
for missile defense programs, it also recommends slowing or 
restructuring programs that do not address the near-term 
threats to the United States, our deployed troops and allies.
    The committee recommends $8.1 billion, a decrease of $764.2 
million, for the activities of the Missile Defense Agency.

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

    The budget request contained $1.1 billion in PE 63892C for 
the sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system.
    Aegis BMD is intended to provide protection against short-, 
medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The 
committee believes that Aegis BMD provides a near-term 
capability that will help defend our forward deployed forces 
and allies and notes that the recent Capabilities Mix Study 
completed by U.S. Strategic Command has indicated that 
combatant commanders require twice as many SM-3 interceptors 
than the 147 that are currently planned.
    The committee recommends $1.1 billion, an increase of $78.0 
million, in PE 63892C for Aegis BMD. Of the recommended 
increase, $22.0 million is for accelerating ballistic missile 
defense signal processor upgrades; $20.0 million for facility 
upgrades that will increase the capacity to manufacture four or 
more missiles per month of the SM-3 Block IB missile in fiscal 
year 2010; and $36.0 million is for long-lead procurement of an 
additional 12 SM-3 Block IB missiles.

Arrow Weapons System

    The budget request contained $73.5 million in PE 63881C for 
continued work on the joint United States-Israeli Arrow Weapons 
System.
    The committee continues to support the Arrow system, which 
provides Israel the capability to defend itself against short- 
and medium-range ballistic missiles.
    The committee recommends $73.5 million in PE 63881C for the 
joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow Weapons System, the amount of the 
budget request.

Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle Management and 
        Communication

    The budget request contained $259.0 million in PE 63895C 
for the Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle 
Management (C2BMC) system.
    The committee notes that the C2BMC system became 
operational in 2006 and provided the combatant commanders' 
command, control, battle management, and communication tools to 
optimize the ballistic missile defense system. The committee is 
concerned that C2BMC suites have still not been installed at 
the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), U.S. European Command 
(USEUCOM), and U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) headquarters. Given the 
importance of this capability to the warfighter, the committee 
recommends that the MDA provide USCENTCOM, USEUCOM, and USFK 
some C2BMC capability in fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $259.0 million in PE 63895C for 
the BMD C2BMC system, the amount of the budget request.

Ballistic Missile Defense joint warfighter support

    The budget request contained $48.7 million in PE 63898C for 
Ballistic Missile Defense joint warfighter support, a decrease 
of $5.6 million from the fiscal year 2007 budget request.
    The committee believes that this program, located at the 
Joint National Integration Center near Colorado Springs, 
Colorado, is critical to ensuring that the warfighter is able 
to effectively train and operate the Ballistic Missile Defense 
system and is concerned by the decision to decrease funding.
    The committee recommends $54.7 million, an increase of $6.0 
million, in PE 63898C for BMD joint warfighter support.

Ballistic Missile Defense sensors

    The budget request contained $778.2 million in PE 63884C 
for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) sensors.
    The committee notes that program-wide support costs for the 
sensors segment have grown by over one hundred percent from 
their fiscal year 2007 level. The committee believes the 
increase in program-wide costs to be excessive and recommends a 
level more consistent with past years.
    The committee recommends $728.2 million, a decrease of 
$50.0 million, in PE 63884C for BMD sensors.

Ballistic Missile Defense system core

    The budget request contained $482.0 million in PE 63890C 
for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) core programs.
    The committee questions the continued need for the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) to have its own intelligence office. While 
the Office of Intelligence and Security performs necessary 
security functions, the committee believes that the MDA should 
rely on the Intelligence Community to conduct intelligence 
support and provide the Director and the various MDA elements 
with up-to-date information on missile threats. This point is 
even more relevant given the fact that MDA will re-locate the 
majority of its personnel and programs to Redstone Arsenal in 
Huntsville, Alabama, over the next several years, where it will 
be co-located with the Defense Intelligence Agency's Missile 
and Space Intelligence Center, one of the nation's primary 
resources for intelligence on ballistic missiles. The committee 
is also concerned about large increases in the requested funds 
for BMD core programs when the requested funding for other 
important programs has been reduced.
    The committee recommends $432.0 million, a decrease of 
$50.0 million in PE 63890C for ballistic missile defense core 
programs. Furthermore, the committee recommends that no funds 
be provided for the intelligence activities of the Office of 
Intelligence and Security and that the office's 
responsibilities be re-focused on security and 
counterintelligence-related activities.

Ballistic Missile Defense system space programs

    The budget request contained $27.6 million in PE 63895C for 
the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system space programs.
    Section 222 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
requires the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees prior to the 
testing or deployment of space-based interceptors. Since the 
committee has yet to receive such a report, the committee 
recommends no funds for the space test bed.
    The committee recommends $17.6 million, a decrease of $10.0 
million, in PE 63895C for BMD system space programs, and 
recommends that no funds be provided for the space test bed.

Ballistic Missile Defense technology

    The budget request contained $118.5 million in PE 63175C 
for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) technology.
    The committee notes the importance of nearer-term missile 
defense priorities, and recommends $108.5, a decrease of $10.0 
million in PE 63175C BMD technology.

Boost defense segment

    The budget request contained $548.7 million in PE 63883C 
for the boost defense segment, primarily for work associated 
with the Airborne Laser (ABL).
    Over the past several years, the Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) has said that a decision on whether it moved forward with 
either the ABL or the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) as the 
primary boost phase defense system would be made by fiscal year 
2008. However, earlier this year, the date for the ABL's lethal 
shoot-down demonstration slipped for the fourth time, and has 
been pushed to September 2009. Given the high-risk nature of 
the ABL program and its history of past delays and cost 
increases, the committee has little confidence that this date 
will not slip into 2010 or possibly later. The committee does 
not believe it is prudent to continue to spend over $500.0 
million a year on a high-risk program that will provide very 
little near-term capability. Therefore, the committee believes 
that a decision must be made whether to move forward with 
either ABL or KEI.
    In March 2006, the MDA submitted a report to Congress 
titled ``Assessment of Boost and Ascent Phase Missile Defense 
Capabilities,'' which was required by section 231 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163). This report has led the committee to question 
whether ABL is a viable operational system. The committee is 
also concerned about the potential costs associated with the 
ABL. The MDA estimates that total research and development 
costs for the first ABL aircraft through the current 2009 
lethal shoot-down demonstration will cost $5.1 billion. 
Additionally, according to estimates by the Congressional 
Budget Office, future ABL aircraft could cost $1.5 billion per 
aircraft, based on an initial fielding run of seven aircraft. 
If we continue to move forward on the present course, the 
nation could potentially spend over $20.0 billion on ABL to 
obtain very limited capability.
    The committee is also concerned that it will be some time 
before any militarily significant ABL capability will reach the 
field. The MDA has stated that it would take at least three, 
but potentially more, ABL aircraft to maintain a full ABL 
orbit. Assuming that there are no further delays in the ABL 
program, it is unlikely that we would see the first full ABL 
orbit, 3-5 aircraft, until the 2018-2020 timeframe. Given the 
threats the nation faces, the committee believes that it would 
be more prudent to invest in more mature near-term missile 
defense systems.
    The committee recommends $298.8 million in PE 63883C, a 
decrease of $250.0 million to restructure ABL into a technology 
demonstration program and to leave open the option of a lethal 
shoot-down demonstration in the future should the technology 
prove viable.

European missile defense site

    The budget request contained $2.5 billion in PE 63882C for 
the ballistic missile defense (BMD) midcourse defense segment. 
Of this amount, approximately $216.0 million is for the 
establishment of a ground-based, midcourse (GMD) interceptor 
site in Europe.
    In the committee's report (H.Rept. 109-452) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 
the committee stated that it believed it was premature to 
invest in the third site until the existing block 2004/2006 GMD 
configuration completed integrated end-to-end testing. The 
committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has still 
not fully completed successful end-to-end testing of the block 
2004/2006 GMD configuration. Furthermore, while the United 
States has begun negotiations with Poland and the Czech 
Republic about the potential deployment of missile defense 
capabilities on their territories, the committee notes that no 
formal agreements have been reached. The committee is reluctant 
to authorize funds for a project that could cost over $4.0 
billion when Congress has not yet received an agreement 
outlining the terms under which those funds would be expended. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds for construction 
of the third site.
    With respect to long-lead procurement for third site 
interceptors, the committee recommends $42.7 million, to 
continue long-lead procurement of ten additional GMD 
interceptors. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2008 
budget justification materials indicate that these interceptors 
could be used at a European site or for expanded inventory at 
Fort Greely, Alaska. That said, the committee is aware that MDA 
plans to deploy a two-stage version of the current ground-based 
interceptor in Europe, and notes its concern with MDA's 
proposed testing plan and risk reduction strategy for that 
missile.
    The committee strongly supports the need to work closely 
with our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to 
defend against ballistic missile threats. However, the 
committee has concerns with the Administration's current 
approach to proceed with the deployment on a bilateral basis 
without NATO's full support. The committee recommends that the 
Administration focus its efforts in the coming months on 
placing its proposal within a strong NATO foundation. 
Furthermore, the committee also believes that any future 
missile defense system deployed in Europe should be part of a 
larger system that can protect all of NATO's European allies, 
and must be fully interoperable with the missile defense system 
that NATO is developing to defend against short- and medium-
range threats.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of State to submit a report to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
January 31, 2008. The report shall include the Administration's 
plans for obtaining NATO's support for its proposal; how the 
proposed system will interoperate with the NATO missile defense 
system; its plan for providing missile defense protection for 
areas of Southern Europe; how other missile defense 
capabilities, such as Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Terminal 
High Altitude Area Defense, and Kinetic Energy Interceptor, 
could contribute to the defense of Europe; the reasons for 
moving to a two-stage booster; the risk reduction strategy for 
that booster; the suitability of deploying the two-stage 
booster at Ft. Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base; and the 
plan for testing the two-stage booster prior to deployment.
    The committee believes that in the absence of the necessary 
international agreements, it is premature to fund construction 
of the European ground-based interceptor site or European radar 
site. To preserve the opportunity to move forward with the 
research and development components of this initiative, the 
committee has recommended $150.0 million for fiscal year 2008. 
Should the necessary international agreements with host 
countries be reached and further engagement with NATO be 
demonstrated in fiscal year 2008, the committee notes that the 
Department has the option of submitting a reprogramming request 
to Congress in fiscal year 2008 to fund site preparation 
activities. The committee recommendation of $150 million does 
not preclude the Department from spending the funds necessary 
for site surveys, studies, analysis and design. The committee 
also notes the importance it attaches to receiving, in a timely 
manner, the independent assessment of European missile defense 
options as described in section 225 of this Act.
    The committee recommends $2.3 billion, a decrease of $160.0 
million, in PE 63882C for the ground-based midcourse defense 
system.

Kinetic Energy Interceptor

    The budget request contained $227.5 million in PE 63886C 
for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program.
    The KEI program successfully met its fiscal year 2006 
knowledge points with no major delays. These successes involved 
the direct downlink from overhead and terrestrial sensors, and 
the static firings of the first and second stages of the 
booster. The KEI program is on schedule to conduct its first 
booster flight test during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
2008. Given the committee's decision with regard to the 
Airborne Laser, the committee recommends that the Department of 
Defense designate KEI as its prime boost phase defense system. 
Furthermore, the committee notes that KEI will also have the 
capability to intercept ballistic missiles in their midcourse 
phase of flight and could serve as an eventual replacement for 
the existing ground-based interceptor. The Missile Defense 
Agency is also examining future options for providing a mobile 
KEI capability. The committee believes that there is an 
inherent flexibility in having mobile missile defense systems 
and recommends that the future KEI development efforts be 
focused on the development of mobile options. However, given 
the importance of nearer-term missile defense priorities, the 
committee has recommended a reduction of the KEI program, with 
the understanding that the program will continue towards a 
booster flight test demonstration in 2008.
    The committee recommends $177.5 million in PE 63886C for 
the KEI, a decrease of $50.0 million.

Missile defense cooperation with Japan and Australia

    The committee strongly supports the Department of Defense's 
on-going missile defense cooperative efforts with Japan and 
Australia. The committee encourages the Department to build on 
and expand such engagements with other allies in the Asia-
Pacific region, and around the world, as a key part of the 
nation's comprehensive strategy for responding to the threat 
posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of 
mass destruction.

Multiple Kill Vehicle

    The budget request contained $271.1 million in PE 63894C 
for the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV).
    The committee notes that the request is more than double 
the amount of funding in fiscal year 2007. The committee 
believes the amount of the request to be excessive for a 
program that is orientated toward longer-term threats. The 
committee also notes that the current family of exo-atmospheric 
kill vehicles are capable of dealing with the near- to mid-term 
threats that the nation is likely to face from rogue nations 
such as Iran and North Korea. Additionally, in budget 
justification materials, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) notes 
that it plans to replace the unitary warhead on the SM-3 Block 
IIA missile, which the United States is co-developing with 
Japan, with the MKV. The committee is concerned that MDA has 
taken this decision without fully consulting with the Japanese 
Government and that this decision has the potential to delay 
the fielding the SM-3 Block IIA missile, a system that the 
committee believes is vital to the security of the United 
States and our allies around the world.
    The committee recommends $229.1 million, a decrease of 
$42.0 million, in PE 63894C for the Multiple Kill Vehicle.

Space Tracking and Surveillance System

    The budget request contained $331.5 million in PE 63893C 
for the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS).
    STSS is a space-based demonstration program designed to 
measure the ability of low-earth orbit satellites to track 
ballistic missiles from space. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 
plans to launch two initial satellites in 2007 to demonstrate 
this capability. The committee believes that it is premature to 
move forward with a follow-on program until the two 
experimental satellites have demonstrated an initial capability 
to acquire, track, discriminate, and report ballistic missiles 
events. Furthermore, the committee requests that the Air Force, 
in coordination with the MDA, examine the applicability of the 
STSS demonstration system and the proposed follow-on system's 
ability to perform against the space situational awareness 
mission requirements. The committee supports fielding the two 
initial STSS demonstration satellites and evaluating the need 
for follow-on satellites.
    The committee recommends $256.5 million, a decrease of 
$75.0 million, in PE 63893C for the Space Tracking and 
Surveillance System.

Special programs--Missile Defense Agency

    The budget request contained $323.3 million in PE 63891C 
for special programs--Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
    The committee recommends $153.3 in PE 63891C, a decrease of 
$170.0 million for special programs--MDA.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

    The budget request contained $858.2 million in PE 63881C 
for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, 
which is designed to protect against short-, medium-, and 
intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
    The committee believes that THAAD will provide an improved 
capability to protect our deployed forces and our allies 
against ballistic missile threats. The committee supports the 
Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) recent decision to procure two 
additional THAAD firing units over the Future Years Defense 
Program, but notes that this is still inadequate to meet the 
current requirements of the combatant commanders. While THAAD 
recently completed its third successful intercept test, the 
committee is concerned about the recent decision by MDA to 
cancel three THAAD intercept tests, primarily for budgetary 
reasons. The committee notes again that the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation and the Government 
Accountability Office have indicated that MDA has not conducted 
sufficient flight testing to properly anchor its models. The 
committee recommends that MDA reconsider its decision to cancel 
the three THAAD flight tests.
    The committee is also aware that several allied nations 
have expressed interest in the possibility of acquiring THAAD. 
The committee supports efforts to provide THAAD to our allies. 
However, the committee notes its concern that national 
disclosure policy has delayed the Department of Defense's 
ability to provide Israel THAAD-related information. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to take the 
necessary actions to ensure that our allies, such as Israel, 
will have access to this critical defensive capability. 
Finally, the committee encourages MDA to begin examining 
options for expanding the capabilities of THAAD in the future.
    The committee recommends $858.2 million in PE 63881C for 
the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, the amount of 
the budget request.

Warfighter Involvement Program

    The committee is aware that in January 2002 the Secretary 
of Defense exempted the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) from the 
normal requirements process. In order to address warfighter 
requirements, the U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) and the 
MDA have established the Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP). 
The committee believes that it is essential that warfighter's 
requirements drive the missile defense development process and 
believes that the WIP has generally been a step in the right 
direction. However, the committee continues to have concerns 
about the role the warfighter is playing in the missile defense 
development process.
    The committee directs the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command 
to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services on the WIP by October 
31, 2007. The report shall address the role that USSTRATCOM 
played in the missile defense development process prior to the 
initiation of the WIP; the key elements of the WIP; the role 
USSTRATCOM plays in decisions by the MDA to initiate new 
missile defense programs; the role USSTRATCOM plays in the 
testing of the missile defense system, and the process for 
resolving disputes if there is a disagreement between the MDA 
and USSTRATCOM.

Basic research for combating weapons of mass destruction

    The budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 61000BR for 
basic research into capabilities for combating weapons of mass 
destruction.
    The committee is aware that the Counterproliferation 
Program Review Committee's May, 2006, report indicates that 
basic research for combating weapons of mass destruction is not 
funded sufficiently.
    The committee recommends $10.0 million, an increase of $5.0 
million, in PE 61000BR, for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 
basic research initiative to further basic research for 
combating weapons of mass destruction.

Budget exhibits and program elements

    The conference report (H. Rept. 109-360) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, 
directed that the Comptroller General examine the fidelity of 
the Department of Defense's (DOD) research, development, test, 
and evaluation (RDT&E) program's budget justification 
materials' program element code structure and budget exhibits 
in providing complete and accurate information for 
congressional oversight.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the 
program element code structure as used by the Department does 
not provide adequate visibility into the types of development 
activities being conducted, is inconsistently applied among 
services and defense agencies, and often fails to comply with 
the DOD's own regulations and directives. Approximately one-
third of RDT&E programs are improperly categorized as to major 
force program.
    The GAO also found that DOD budget justification materials 
are difficult to understand or compare in many cases because 
the materials frequently lack information about the 
accomplishments from the previous year and the planned activity 
for the next year; often provide information that is vague; 
often incorrectly categorize programs and projects by budget 
activity; lack the required information; sometimes fail to 
provide cross references between projects; have inconsistent 
formats across the military services; often aggregate large 
and/or dissimilar projects within the same program, limiting 
visibility and oversight of movement of funds among projects 
within program elements; and frequently exclude key schedule 
data for projects and programs. As a result the budget 
justification materials do not provide consistent and complete 
data with the adequate levels of detail needed to understand 
DOD's planned efforts to provide the transparency needed to 
provide responsible oversight.
    The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 
address the deficiencies with the current RDT&E budget 
justification displays. Commencing with the fiscal year 2009 
budget request, DOD RDT&E budget justification materials shall:
          (1) Ensure that program nomenclature titles reflect 
        the content of the program request;
          (2) Ensure that project titles and program titles be 
        the same when there is only one project in the program 
        element;
          (3) Provide a summary table on the first page of the 
        ``R-2'' of all projects within the program elements 
        with the project identification code, name, and dollar 
        amount for each project;
          (4) Provide, in the case of all projects in budget 
        activities four, five, and seven, project schedules and 
        reflect year-over-year changes from the previous year's 
        request; and
          (5) Provide for, in the case of the Department of the 
        Army, separate program elements for all projects shown 
        in program elements 35204A and 23744A in the fiscal 
        year 2008 budget request.
    Commencing with the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to further modify 
the budget item justification materials, in addition to changes 
made for the fiscal year 2009 justification materials, as 
follows:
          (1) Budget item justification shall comply with DOD's 
        regulations and directives and shall be standardized 
        among the military departments and agencies;
          (2) Budget item justification shall separate the 
        current accomplishments and planned program into two 
        sections;
          (3) Budget item justification shall report program 
        changes at both the program and project level;
          (4) Budget item justification shall identify 
        financial and programmatic relationships and 
        dependencies between projects regardless of budget 
        activity or resource component. At a minimum, the 
        program element and the project number shall be 
        identified for dependencies between projects and this 
        information shall be listed in all exhibits; and
          (5) Budget item justification, for budget activities 
        four, five, and seven, shall display program historical 
        and projected milestones such as engineering 
        milestones, acquisition milestones, test and evaluation 
        events, and other key milestones, as applicable, so 
        that current phase milestones and changes from the 
        prior year can be determined.

Chemical and Biological Defense Program

    The committee recommends continuation of the chemical and 
biological basic research, applied research, and advanced 
technology development initiatives established in the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
(Public Law 108-375). These initiatives would provide 
opportunities for emerging technologies and concepts to compete 
for funding on the basis of technical merit and on the 
contribution that such technologies could make to the chemical 
and biological defense capabilities of the armed forces and to 
homeland defense.

Advanced technology development

    The budget request contained $232.3 million in PE 63384BP 
for chemical and biological warfare defense advanced technology 
development.
    The committee recommends that the technologies to be 
considered for funding under the chemical and biological 
advanced technology development initiative, would include, but 
would not be limited to the following:
          (1) Advanced development of individual and collective 
        protection systems to include air filtration systems 
        and self-decontaminating surfaces; and
          (2) Advanced development of biological and chemical 
        agent detection systems, including computational tools 
        and wide-spectrum bio ID sensors.
    The committee recommends $257.3 million, an increase of 
$25.0 million, in PE 63384BP for the chemical and biological 
advanced technology development initiative.

Applied research

    The budget request contained $305.3 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological warfare defense applied research.
    The committee recommends that the technologies to be 
considered for funding under the chemical and biological 
applied research initiative, would include, but would not be 
limited to the following:
          (1) Multipurpose biodefense microarray and 
        immunoarray diagnostic tools; and
          (2) Enhanced multifunctional particles, self-
        decontaminating surfaces/polymer-based coatings for 
        fabrics and other substrates; and
          (3) Novel delivery systems for prophylaxis/
        therapeutics against biological warfare agents.
    The committee recommends $325.3 million in PE 62384BP, an 
increase of $20.0 million, PE 62384BP for the chemical and 
biological applied research initiative.

Basic research

    The budget request contained $72.0 million in PE 61384BP 
for chemical and biological warfare defense basic research.
    The committee recommends that the technologies to be 
considered for funding under the chemical and biological basic 
research initiative, would include, but would not be limited to 
the following:
          (1) Superstructural particle evaluation and 
        characterization with targeted reaction analysis of 
        emerging prophylactics for chemical and biological 
        agent protection.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
61384BP for the chemical and biological basic research 
initiative.

Contextual Arabic analysis program

    The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63122D8Z 
for combating terrorism technology support, but contained no 
funds for machine translation tools to accurately translate 
blog and slang language on Arabic websites, blogs and chat 
rooms.
    The committee notes the need for improved technologies to 
enhance contextual translation tools and refine dictionary 
sets, as well as the need for a corpus of information including 
specific taxonomies, definition sets, and collections of 
parallel translations for terms commonly used in the electronic 
domain that could be integrated into such translation tools.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 
63122D8Z to enhance a pilot project under development by the 
technical support working group, including validation testing 
and operational evaluation.

Defense Technical Information Center

    The budget request contained $51.8 million in PE 65801KA 
for the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
    DTIC provides centralized information acquisition, 
processing, storage, retrieval, and dissemination of scientific 
and technical information for the Department of Defense. The 
DTIC's knowledge management and information technology 
applications improve information sharing among the service 
components and agencies, as well as with the other federal 
scientific organizations and industrial and academic 
organizations involved in scientific, technical, and 
engineering inquiry. The committee notes the important useful 
contributions that the DTIC has made to enhancing efficiencies 
and information sharing within the Department, but encourages 
DTIC to implement a customer-funded vice appropriations 
approach to work reimbursement.
    The committee recommends $46.8 million, a decrease of $5.0 
million in 65801KA to DTIC.

Enterprise license agreement

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the 
committee directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to report on 
issues concerning enterprise licensing of commercial software. 
The results of that report reinforce the committee's belief 
that savings may be achieved and security enhanced in the 
procurement of commercial software applications by including 
specified provisions in the original procurement agreements 
issued by the Department. These provisions would require that 
the delivered software meet DOD configuration standards and 
that vendors would be required to update the software to meet 
any necessary Department-driven configuration changes. 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 successful Air Force model 
should be implemented throughout the Department. Therefore, the 
committee urges the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics to apply a similar approach for the 
entire Department.

Foliage penetration reconnaissance and surveillance

    The budget request contained $21.3 million in PE 11641BB 
for Special Operations technology development, but contained no 
funds for the development and demonstration of the foliage 
penetration reconnaissance and surveillance system.
    The committee supports initiatives to employ innovative, 
multi-sensor tactical sensors in dynamic maritime environments 
and is aware of efforts sponsored by the Naval Service Warfare 
Center to fuse hyperspectral imaging and synthetic aperture 
radar applications. The committee recognizes such efforts as 
promising significant advancements in target discrimination, 
especially in littoral and riverine environments. The committee 
supports further development and testing of these efforts as 
well as attempts to reduce related size and weight 
requirements.
    The committee therefore recommends an increase of $5.85 
million in PE 11641BB to test, develop, and miniaturize the 
multi-sensor foliage penetration reconnaissance and 
surveillance system for maritime applications.

Human systems integration

    The budget request contained $9.0 million in PE 63670D8Z 
for Human, Social and Cultural Behavior modeling advanced 
development, but contained no funds for Human Systems 
Integration (HSI).
    The committee has reviewed the April, 2007 Department of 
Defense report on HSI, applauds its content, and supports the 
recommendations contained therein advocating for a more joint 
and comprehensive approach in this area. The committee 
recognizes the need to improve the overall performance of 
weapons systems, and accepts the view of the Department that 
HSI is but one contribution in a larger approach to effect a 
reduction in Total Ownership Costs in weapons systems 
development, training, and military operations. As a result, 
the committee encourages further attention to this enterprise 
and includes a legislative provision (section 231) requiring 
the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official to 
coordinate and develop HSI-related activities and 
methodologies.
    The committee recommends $21.0 million, and increase of 
$12.0 million, in PE 63670D8Z for the joint HSI effort.

Information assurance activities

    The committee notes that maintaining freedom of action in 
cyberspace is increasingly important to military operations, as 
well as overall national security. The committee is aware that 
certain inadequacies exist across the government, which inhibit 
the systematic and effective conduct of cyberspace operations 
in the face of increasing state and non-state activity in this 
medium. While the Department of Defense (DOD) is working to 
improve its capabilities to conduct effective cyberspace 
operations, the committee is concerned that the Department may 
lack the resources, authorities, training and policy to conduct 
effective cyberspace operations to protect military systems, 
gain and maintain dominance and coordinate appropriately with 
interagency partners.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report on the DOD cyberspace policy and operations 
to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after 
the enactment of this Act. A classified annex shall be 
submitted as required. The report shall provide:
          (1) A review of the legal authorities, which govern 
        the DOD's conduct of cyberspace operations, and 
        recommendations to ensure effective cyberspace 
        operations.
          (2) A review of DOD's policies for cyberspace 
        operations including, but not limited to: information 
        sharing, intelligence, mission assurance, hardware and 
        software assurance, risk management, computer network 
        operations, and integration of related classified and 
        unclassified programs.
          (3) An overview of the DOD's cyberspace organization, 
        strategy, missions, programs, and capabilities.
          (4) An assessment of the operational challenges the 
        Department faces in protecting, defending, and 
        operating in cyberspace, to include an assessment of 
        the impact of the military's reliance on commercial 
        communications infrastructures.
          (5) An assessment and recommendation to improve DOD's 
        ability to coordinate: intra-and interdepartmental 
        cyberspace operations, especially with the law 
        enforcement and intelligence communities and with the 
        commercial sector and international allies. This 
        assessment shall include specific consideration of the 
        establishment of a single joint organization for 
        cyberspace operations within the Department and 
        recommendations to improve interagency participation in 
        joint operations.
          (6) An overview of the current and future training 
        and education requirements, and recruiting and 
        retention strategy required for the Department to 
        conduct effective cyberspace operations. The overview 
        shall include consideration of the development of a 
        joint cyberspace corps of military and civilian 
        personnel.
          (7) An overview of current funding for cyberspace 
        operations to include: a review of specific line items 
        related to cyberspace operations; unfunded requirements 
        and current research and development efforts; and an 
        assessment of the need for a major force program for 
        cyberspace operations.

Innovation for national security

    The committee notes that a number of prominent studies have 
detailed the growth in global science and technology investment 
and intellectual capital, relative to that of the United 
States. At the same time, as articulated in the 2006 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the national security situation has 
changed dramatically. Present and future adversaries are likely 
to use asymmetric means and agile application of technology 
against the United States.
    In the face of these new threats, the committee is 
concerned that a strategic framework, which fails to build U.S. 
intellectual capital advantage, could increase risks to future 
U.S. national security. The committee commends the Department 
of Defense (DOD) for its recent efforts to attract and retain 
top-quality scientists and engineers through the National 
Defense Education Program. The committee is concerned, however, 
with the continued decline in the budget requests for DOD 
science and technology efforts, particularly basic research. 
This decline in DOD basic research comes at a time when the 
President has launched the American Competitiveness Initiative, 
aimed at increasing federal basic research funding and creating 
a new generation of scientists and engineers. Additionally, the 
Directors of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) stated in a July 
23, 2006 memorandum on the Administration's fiscal year 2008 
research and development priorities that ``high impact basic 
and applied research of the Department of Defense should be a 
significant priority.'' Despite these recommendations, the 
budget request for defense basic and applied research fell 
below zero percent real growth for fiscal year 2008.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report addressing DOD's responses to the 
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences report, 
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' and the OMB/OSTP 
memorandum. The report shall include: (1) DOD's efforts to 
identify, support, and expand basic research in fields critical 
to meeting DOD's future technological needs; (2) DOD's estimate 
of the impacts of technology globalization to national 
security; and (3) steps that must be taken to ensure that the 
DOD's future scientific and technological workforce 
requirements, including those of the defense industrial base, 
can be satisfactorily met over the next 20 years. The report 
shall also outline a long-term, strategic plan for how the 
Department believes a sustained increase in funding for DOD 
basic research could be effectively utilized. The Secretary 
shall submit the report to the congressional defense committees 
by the distribution date of the fiscal year 2009 budget 
request.

In-transit visibility system

    The budget request contained $11.3 million in PE 65013BL 
for information technology development, but contained no funds 
for facility and terminal management security.
    The committee expects that the system employed will have 
the following features, including, but not limited to: creation 
and issuance of transportation worker identification credential 
compliant security passes; scanning capability for bar-coded 
security passes; picture identification verification; 
destination assignment within the facility; creation of 
customizable report; exact date and time record of entry; 
storage of video feed to disk or tape; and file share with 
local, state and/or federal law enforcement agencies. The 
system should provide for biometric closing and video loading 
identification. The system should be fully secured with secure 
socket layer technology and should be protected from brute 
force hacking attacks and from cross side server scripting. The 
system should not require investment in client/server 
architecture or installation of software.
    The committee recommends $12.3 million, an increase of $1.0 
million, in PE 65013BL to implement a complete gate and 
facility security and terminal management security module that 
works in real time.

Irregular Warfare Support

    The budget request contained $32.7 million in PE 63121D8Z 
for SO/LIC Advanced Development, containing $2.1 million for 
Irregular Warfare Support (IWS).
    The committee recognizes the importance of enhancing the 
counterterrorism and counterinsurgency capabilities of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) and understands that the IWS 
initiative leverages efforts within the Department and within 
other agencies to provide technical and operational 
capabilities in support of DOD activities and to facilitate 
greater awareness of the cultural and ideological challenges 
facing military personnel. The committee urges the Department 
to continue these efforts and explore additional approaches to 
irregular warfare capabilities, including an increased 
understanding of the specific cultural, social, ideological, 
economic, and political contexts for ongoing counterterrorism 
and counterinsurgency operations. The committee expects such 
efforts to include academic research in Jihadi ideology and 
strategic thought as well as enhanced efforts to produce, 
collect, centralize, and operationalize cultural knowledge.
    The committee expects such efforts to also include 
unconventional countermeasures to improvised explosive devices, 
innovations in the development of explosive ordnance disposal 
capabilities, consideration of a role for foreign nationals in 
the U.S. Armed Forces, and non- lethal technologies and 
weaponry.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 
million in PE 63121D8Z for IWS to strengthen the DOD's 
capability to conduct effective counterterrorism and 
counterinsurgency operations, explore additional approaches as 
noted above, and to identify both intra- and interagency 
solutions to conduct successful operations.

Joint Capability Technology Demonstration

    The budget request contained $194.4 million in PE 63648D8Z 
for joint capability technology demonstrations (JCTD).
    The committee commends the Department of Defense's efforts 
to improve its business model for transitioning capabilities 
relevant to the warfighter in a more cost effective, timely, 
and efficient manner. The committee notes and agrees that new 
projects executed under the new JCTD model should focus more on 
joint and coalition needs and relevant capability requirements 
as defined by the combatant commanders. The committee also 
notes that eventually all new projects entering the JCTD 
process will be aligned with the traditional planning, 
programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process to allow 
better transition into acquisition. The current JCTD program 
consists of several legacy advanced concept and technology 
demonstrations (ACTD) projects. The committee believes that 
these legacy projects do not fit the joint warfighter centric 
approach and are not aligned with the PPBE cycle. The committee 
is concerned that the Department will have difficulty 
transitioning some of these legacy projects into programs of 
record.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million, in PE 
63648D8Z for joint capability technology demonstrations. The 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to identify and apply 
the reductions to those programs that do not have strong 
Combatant Commander support and are at greatest risk of not 
being adopted by a program of record.

Joint command and control

    The budget request contained $70.3 million in PE 33158K for 
the net-enabled command capability (NECC).
    The NECC is intended to be the Department of Defense's 
principal command and control information technology system, 
enabling advanced collaborative information sharing through 
vertical and horizontal interoperability. As the net-centric 
migration path for the Global Command and Control System Family 
of Systems, the NECC will support force-level planning, 
execution, monitoring, and assessment of joint and 
multinational operations. The NECC will use net-centric 
enterprise services, core enterprise services, and will be able 
to exchange information across multiple security domains.
    The committee believes that due to recent activity delays, 
the Defense Information Systems Agency will not be able to 
execute the full fiscal year 2008 request in the time 
remaining. Accordingly, the committee recommends $50.3 million 
in PE 33158K for joint command and control, a decrease of $20.0 
million for the net-enabled command and control program.

Joint Experimentation program

    The budget request contained $112.0 million in PE 63828D8Z 
for Joint Experimentation.
    The Joint Experimentation program intends to improve joint-
force mission requirements by partnering the services and 
defense agencies with the combatant commanders to address time-
sensitive joint operational requirements. The committee 
believes this is an important objective, but notes that this 
effort is not adequately tied into the wider research and 
development requirements process, which has the potential to 
lead to unwarranted duplication of effort and inadequate 
oversight. Transferring the program element to the Director for 
Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) has the potential to 
remedy these concerns, but the committee notes that the DDR&E 
will need to better integrate Joint Experimentation into the 
overall suite of research and development programs to prevent 
overlapping activities and inefficient spending. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63828D8Z for the 
Joint Experimentation program.

Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office

    The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 63832D8Z 
for the Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office (JWSMO).
    Modeling and simulation (M&S) capabilities are important 
tools that provide a powerful complement to traditional forms 
of experimental development, often helping to reduce cost in 
time, funding, and manpower. The committee observes and is 
concerned that each service has its own distinct M&S 
capability, as well as those used by the functional commands. 
Additionally, the defense agencies, national laboratories, and 
other federal entities are also developing M&S capabilities to 
fit their unique needs. The committee notes that it is 
imperative that all M&S efforts be coordinated in order to 
reduce duplicative systems, harmonize requirements, and 
leverage the talents of the entire M&S workforce to provide a 
common architecture that can be effectively employed across the 
defense enterprise.
    The committee is concerned that the JWSMO, formerly the 
Defense Modeling and Simulation Coordination Office, which was 
established to fill just that role, has not adequately carried 
out its coordination mission with the services and agencies to 
ensure commonality, reuse, and interoperability of existing and 
new M&S technologies.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $20.0 million, a 
decrease of $17.8 million, in PE 63832D8Z for the JWSMO.

License plate recognition initiative

    The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63122D8Z 
for combating terrorist technology support, but contained no 
funds for license plate recognition systems.
    The committee recognizes that license plate recognition 
systems can be powerful tools for homeland security and 
counter-drug applications, as well as traditional law 
enforcement. Many states are already making use of some such 
systems, which have up to 98 percent accuracy, and can reduce a 
month's workload to 24 hours. Privacy concerns are also 
ameliorated, as the system focuses on license plates and not 
the driver, and thus can tap into existing databases of license 
plate information.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 
63122D8Z to deploy systems with select military police units 
operating on and around military installations to test and 
validate data sharing linkages with the law enforcement, 
including development of tactics, techniques, and procedures 
for information sharing and privacy protection.

Medical Free Electron Laser

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 62227D8Z for 
the Medical Free Electron Laser (MFEL) program.
    The committee is concerned that the MFEL program was not 
contained in the budget request. Our armed forces benefit every 
day from the developments of the MFEL program. MFEL is a peer-
reviewed and merit-based program that has a proven track record 
of delivering combat casualty care technology and medical 
interventions. Most laser-based medical procedures used in 
surgery at military level three to level five hospitals for 
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom 
casualties have a research base and lineage from the MFEL 
program. The MFEL program developed, deployed, and has several 
ongoing programs in advanced diagnosis and treatment procedures 
for complex and sometimes unique medical challenges on the 
battlefield. These challenges include medical imaging, burn 
management, cauterization, and tissue repair.
    The committee does not understand why such a successful 
program was not funded in the budget request. Not only will 
this action preclude new advances, but it will also terminate 
several successful interventions in mid-stream. The committee 
believes it is important to note that these medical advances 
will ultimately benefit all Americans.
    Accordingly, the committee urges the Director, Defense 
Research and Engineering, to make available the necessary funds 
in fiscal year 2008 to support MFEL activities currently in 
progress. The committee further urges the Secretary of Defense 
to continue funding the MFEL program in the future budget 
requests.
    The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE 
62227D8Z for the MFEL program.

National Defense Education Program

    The budget request contained $44.4 million in PE 61120D8Z 
for the National Defense Education Program (NDEP), containing 
$2.0 million for Materials World Modules (MWM); $13.0 million 
for Pre-engineering Modules; $24.0 million for Science, 
Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART); and $5.4 
million for National Security Science and Engineering Faculty 
Fellowships (NSSEFF).
    The committee understands the Department of Defense's 
efforts to shape its current and future technical workforce 
through fostering interest, recruitment, and retention across 
all levels of the science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) education pipeline. The committee notes that 
MWM currently supports high school students. The committee 
further notes that the Director, Defense Research and 
Engineering proposes a new K-12 program under NDEP called Pre-
engineering Modules intended to address middle school students.
    The committee is concerned that while the Department has 
provided evidence of effectiveness for MWM and has articulated 
plans to implement MWM throughout several states over the next 
few years, their fiscal year 2008 budget request contained $2.0 
million for MWM, a decrease of more than half of the fiscal 
year 2007 budget request. The projected budget request for 2009 
contained no funds for MWM. The committee further notes the 
budget request contained $13.0 million for Pre-engineering 
Modules, but failed to clearly identify the requirements for 
that level of funding, even after several attempts by the 
committee to ascertain the rationale.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $6.5 million dollars, 
an increase of $4.5 million, for MWM, $27.0 million, an 
increase of $3.0 million, for SMART $7.4 million, an increase 
of $2.0 million, for NSSEFF, and recommends $3.5 million, a 
decrease of $9.5 million, for Pre-engineering Modules.

Office of Force Transformation

    The budget request contained $20.6 million in PE 65799D8Z 
for the Office of Force Transformation (OFT).
    The committee notes OFT is expecting to sponsor research, 
prototyping, and operational experimentation intended to 
support transformational activities. While the committee 
strongly supports Department of Defense efforts in these areas, 
the committee believes that OFT's activities overlap 
significantly with similar efforts with the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency, the service laboratories, and other 
defense agency experimentation programs.
    The committee recommends $12.0 million, a decrease of $8.0 
million, in PE 65799D8Z for the Office of Force Transformation. 
The committee encourages the Department to leave funding intact 
for the development of active protection systems.

Posture review of critical infrastructures

    The committee understands the interdependent nature of 
critical Department of Defense (DOD) and national civilian 
infrastructures and is concerned that vulnerabilities in one 
may constitute a vulnerability in the other. The committee 
understands that mission essential DOD assets and 
infrastructures are reliant on civilian infrastructure to carry 
out warfighting activities and can be affected by accidents and 
natural disasters as much as terrorist events. The committee 
notes, for example, DOD information and technology systems are 
not only reliant on commercial bandwidth in many cases, but 
also on the underlying commercial power grid.
    The committee strongly believes that the Department needs 
to articulate how it is working with other federal agencies, 
such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department 
of Energy, to better coordinate responsibilities for the 
identification of dependencies and associated vulnerabilities 
with potential impact on critical infrastructure. To address 
this concern, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs to 
outline DOD's approach to understanding critical infrastructure 
vulnerabilities and dependencies on sectors and communities 
outside of DOD's responsibility, which directly or indirectly 
support DOD operations, and submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act. The approach presented in the report 
shall focus on the identification and prioritization of DOD's 
mission critical functions, the location of assets providing 
those functions, and ongoing efforts to determine 
vulnerabilities (all-hazards) to those assets deemed critical 
to mission assurance. The report also shall address any efforts 
coordinated with the other departments and agencies overseeing 
the supporting infrastructure, and shall develop mitigation 
strategies for post-event remediation and replacement of such 
capabilities.

Rapid identification of commercial information technologies for 
        military requirements

    The budget request contained $5.2 million in PE 33169D8Z 
for information technology rapid acquisition, but contained no 
funds for a demonstration project to rapidly identify 
commercial information technology (IT) solutions to satisfy 
military requirements.
    The committee is concerned with the apparent inability of 
the Department of Defense to incorporate innovative IT 
solutions in a widespread manner. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense to pursue a more aggressive and 
comprehensive approach to such solutions in section 841 of this 
Act.
    Therefore, to execute the rapid identification and 
acquisition of commercial IT technologies, the committee 
recommends $15.2 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 
33169D8Z.

Secure free space optical communications

    The budget request contained $3.5 million in PE 33191D8Z 
for the joint electromagnetic technology program, but contained 
no funds for secure miniaturized free space optical 
communications.
    The committee is aware of the ongoing advances being 
achieved by leveraging several enabling commercial 
technologies, as well as specific defense capabilities, which 
were previously developed within the Advanced Sensor 
Applications Program. The committee recognizes that these 
ongoing advances are applied to the Department of Defense's 
requirements for a mobile, wireless communications capability 
to and from sensor and user assets, it will greatly increase 
the warfighters' ability to communicate securely and covertly 
over higher bandwidths with a low probability of interception.
    The committee recommends $9.5 million, an increase of $6.0 
million in PE 33191D8Z to complete final development of a 
secure, covert communications capability utilizing a low 
probability of interception free space optical system.

Small craft common operational picture

    The budget request contained $109.5 million in PE 63826D8Z 
for quick reaction special projects, but contained no funds for 
a small craft integrated common operational picture.
    The committee supports the Navy's efforts in the 
integration of advanced situational awareness technology into 
all facets of small craft operations. Demonstrations of 
augmented reality-based situational awareness systems have been 
shown to dramatically improve situational awareness and enhance 
vehicle control, resulting in increased operator effectiveness 
and improvement in mission performance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million in PE 
63826D8Z to provide a flexible solution that merges both 
navigational and tactical capabilities to improve situational 
awareness aboard small craft.

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

    The budget request contained $68.9 million in PE 63716D8Z 
for Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 
(SERDP).
    The budget request reflected an increase of $2.2 million 
for munitions management (MM) and an increase $1.9 million for 
sustainable infrastructure. While the committee understands 
that SERDP addresses environmental issues pertaining to 
training and testing sustainability and reduction of 
environmental liabilities, the committee is concerned that the 
request for MM and sustainable infrastructure increased 12 to 
15 percent respectively, from fiscal year 2007 without clearly 
justifying the increased funding request.
    The committee recommends $64.9 million, a decrease of $4.0 
million, in PE 63716D8Z for SERDP.

Synthetic Aperture Radar Coherent Change Detection

    The budget request contained $6.5 million in PE 63745D8Z 
for synthetic aperture radar (SAR) coherent change detection 
(CCD).
    The committee notes that this effort appears to be 
duplicative with other service programs that are advancing the 
capability of SAR CCD. The committee further notes that the 
budget justification materials for this program indicates that 
planned phase four efforts would deploy the capability on a 
Class III unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Currently, there are 
no efforts within the Department that support development of 
Class III UAVs.
    The committee recommends no funds in PE 65799D8Z for SAR 
CCD.

Vacuum electronics

    The committee notes the continued importance of vacuum 
electronics (VE), not only to the Department of Defense (DOD), 
but to applications throughout the federal government. The 
committee believes a healthy national industrial capacity is 
necessary to provide VE components for systems where solid 
state electronics fail to provide the required power, 
frequency, or electromagnetic pulse protection. Further, VE 
components operating in legacy systems that support the 
warfighter need to be maintained. In the report required by 
section 212 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), 
the Department indicated that $4.5 million for applied research 
was an adequate funding level necessary to maintain a healthy 
VE industrial base. The committee notes the fiscal year 2008 
budget request and the projected 2009 request for VE applied 
research were $3.4 million and $3.3 million, respectively.
    The committee supports the funding levels indicated in the 
2005 report and recommends that the Department provide such 
funding for VE in the fiscal year 2009 budget request and in 
future years. Accordingly, the committee understands that the 
Department is currently re-evaluating the appropriate defense 
funding levels for VE and encourages the Department to 
incorporate those decisions in their future year defense budget 
requests.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $180.3 million for Operational 
Test and Evaluation, Defense.
    The committee recommends $180.3 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 2008

         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 2008

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


 Section 211--Operational Test and Evaluation of Future Combat Systems 
                                Network

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
conduct a large-scale, realistic, operational test and 
evaluation of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) communications 
and sensor network prior to initiating low-rate initial 
production or full-rate production of FCS manned ground 
vehicles. This section would also require the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation to report to Congress within 
120 days of the test's completion with the results of the test. 
The production limitation on manned ground vehicles does not 
apply to the non-line-of-sight cannon (NLOS-C) system.

  Section 212--Limitation on Systems Development and Demonstration of 
                  Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program

    This section would restrict the obligation of authorized 
funds for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program 
beyond its Design Readiness Review until the congressional 
defense committees receive a progress report on the program's 
compliance with section 2366a of title 10, United States Code.
    The committee strongly supports the JLTV program. The 
committee recognizes the JLTV program is a required and 
ambitious attempt to replace high mobility multi-purpose 
wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs) across the Army, Marine Corps, Air 
Force and Special Operation Forces. The committee also 
understands that JLTV must meet full spectrum Key Performance 
Parameters including mobility, transportability, net-readiness, 
force protection, survivability, payload capacity and 
operational availability and notes this is what makes JLTV 
different than the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) 
vehicle being fielded today to meet a specific theater 
requirement to defeat mines and Improvised Explosive Devices. 
The committee understands that JLTV would provide significantly 
better protection, performance and payload capacity over the 
Up-Armored HMMWVs and MRAP without compromising mobility, 
protection, capability, or transportability.
    It is the challenge to address the JLTV full spectrum 
requirements, which causes the committee concern and creates 
skepticism regarding the Army and Marine Corps' desire to 
accelerate the program. Specifically, the committee is 
concerned that the JLTV may enter the acquisition phase of 
System Development and Demonstration (SDD) with insufficient 
knowledge of technology maturity, requirements, and 
affordability. The committee notes that it may not be prudent 
for the Department of Defense to impose a firm fixed price 
contract for JLTV during the early stage of the SDD acquisition 
phase. The committee believes the JLTV program is too important 
for it to fall victim to cost growth and unnecessary schedule 
delays that have plagued other Department of Defense major 
defense acquisition programs that have entered into SDD 
prematurely.
    The section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a progress report on JLTV within 30 days prior to the 
date of the JLTV Design Readiness Review and would prohibit 
obligation of funding for the JLTV System Demonstration phase 
of SDD until the congressional defense committees review this 
report. This limitation is based on the assumption that the 
Army and Marine Corps will fully comply with section 2366a of 
title 10, United States Code prior to Milestone B and entering 
the Systems Integration phase of SDD. Further, this section 
would require the JLTV progress report to be structured in 
accordance with the certification required by section 2366a of 
title 10, United States Code.

    Section 213--Requirement to Obligate Funds for Development and 
  Procurement of a Competitive Propulsion System for the Joint Strike 
                                Fighter

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
obligate sufficient annual amounts to develop and procure a 
competitive propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter, in 
order to conduct a competitive propulsion source selection, 
from funds appropriated for fiscal year 2008 or any fiscal year 
thereafter, pursuant to an authorization of appropriations or 
otherwise made available for research development, test, and 
evaluation and procurement for the Joint Strike Fighter 
program.

 Section 214--Limitation on Use of Funds for Manufacturing Science and 
                           Technology Program

    This section would require the Director of Defense Research 
and Engineering to ensure that any funds obligated or expended 
from PE 63680D8Z are awarded using full and open competition, 
meet all statutory and policy guidance for the manufacturing 
technology program, and are awarded only upon execution of a 
technology transition agreement with a prospective technology 
user.
    The committee notes that the Director plans to fund cross-
cutting manufacturing initiatives with the funds appropriated 
to this account, in addition to the amounts appropriated for 
manufacturing technology within the defense components. As 
such, the committee feels strongly that the use of competitive 
procedures should be maximized in order to foster innovation 
and avoid duplication of effort with on-going component 
manufacturing technology programs. The committee believes that 
the Director should solicit proposals for the new manufacturing 
initiatives to be funded within this account and award such 
projects on the basis of merit, rather than transfer the funds 
appropriated to the defense components for obligation onto 
existing contractual vehicles without further competition.

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs


   Section 221--Oversight of Missile Defense Agency Programs by the 
               Director of Operational Test & Evaluation

    This section would require the Director of the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) to report all operational test and 
evaluation data to the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation (DOT&E), and ensure that the DOT&E has access to all 
information within the Department of Defense that the DOT&E 
considers necessary to review in order to carry out the duties 
as required in this provision.

  Section 222--Fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities and 
          Future Roles and Missions of Missile Defense Agency

    This section would allow funds to be authorized for 
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) to be used for the fielding of ballistic 
missile defense capabilities for fiscal year 2009. This section 
would also require the Director of the MDA to seek operation 
and maintenance funds for operations and support-related 
activities in the fiscal year 2009 budget request, and would 
require the Director of the MDA to develop a plan for using 
procurement funds where practicable for missile defense 
fielding activities in the future. Furthermore, this section 
would require an independent study to be conducted by a 
federally funded research and development center to examine the 
future roles and missions of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), 
and make recommendations with regard to the future structure of 
the agency.
    In its annual report on the missile defense program 
released in March 2007, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) recommended that MDA request procurement funding rather 
than research, development, test, and evaluation funds to 
acquire and field new assets. The committee concurs with GAO's 
recommendation and believes that MDA needs to begin using 
procurement funds to acquire and field missile defense assets. 
However, the committee understands that it will be difficult 
for MDA to implement this recommendation in one year. 
Therefore, the committee has agreed to allow MDA a one-year 
extension to use research and develop funds for fielding 
activities through fiscal year 2009. However, this section will 
require the Department of Defense to request operation and 
maintenance funds for MDA in the fiscal year 2009 budget 
request, and to develop a plan for using procurement funds 
where practicable for missile defense fielding activities in 
the future. The committee understands that it will need to work 
with the Department and MDA to identify the applicability of 
these requirements to each individual element of the ballistic 
missile defense system. While the committee recognizes the need 
to retain some flexibility to allow the missile defense program 
to respond to changing threats, it also believes that this 
needs to be done in a way that increases transparency and 
accountability.
    The committee believes this issue is a subset of the larger 
problem of the military services being unwilling to assume the 
responsibility for acquiring, fielding, and sustaining missile 
defense capabilities. As a result, MDA, which is fundamentally 
a research and development organization, has assumed primary 
responsibility for what are essentially service-related 
activities. The committee believes that the senior leadership 
of the Department needs to make a decision to either require 
the military services to acquire, field, and sustain missile 
defense capabilities, or transform MDA from a research and 
development organization into one more focused on providing 
combat support.

 Section 223--Limitation on Use of Funds for Replacing Warhead on SM-3 
                           Block IIA Missile

    This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from 
replacing the planned unitary warhead on the SM-3 Block IIA 
missile with the multiple kill vehicle until the Secretary of 
Defense certifies that the United States and Japan have reached 
agreement to replace the unitary warhead on the SM-3 Block IIA, 
and that this proposal will not result in a deployment delay of 
the missile.

 Section 224--Two-year Extension of Comptroller General Assessments of 
                       Ballistic Missile Programs

    This section would extend the requirement to fiscal year 
2010 for the Comptroller General to provide an assessment of 
the extent to which the Missile Defense Agency achieved the 
goals established for each ballistic missile defense program of 
the Department of Defense.

 Section 225--Independent Study on Deploying Missile Defense System in 
                                 Europe

    This section would require an independent study to be 
conducted by a federally funded research and development center 
to examine the political, technical, operational, force 
structure, and budgetary aspects of deploying a long-range 
missile defense system in Europe. This study should examine 
other technical options for providing missile defense 
protection for Europe. These options should include an 
examination of existing missile defense systems such as Aegis 
Ballistic Missile Defense system and Terminal High-Altitude 
Area Defense system, as well as explore new concepts such as a 
mobile launch platform.

Section 226--Sense of Congress Concerning Full Support for Development 
          and Fielding of a Layered Ballistic Missile Defense

    This section would express the sense of Congress that it 
fully supports efforts to develop and deploy a layered 
ballistic missile defense system. It also notes that it is the 
policy of the United States to accord priority within the 
missile defense program towards nearer-term missile defense 
systems.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


  Section 231--Responsibility for Human Systems Integration Activities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
designate, within 60 days after date of enactment of this Act, 
a senior Department of Defense (DOD) official to develop, 
coordinate, and manage human systems integration activities 
throughout the Department.
    This section would require the Secretary to supervise the 
planning, management and coordination of such activities after 
designating the senior official. The responsibilities of the 
Secretary's designee shall include the development of a DOD 
Instruction and a DOD Directive, if necessary.
    This section would further require the senior official to 
identify and recommend resource requirements of these 
activities, as appropriate.

  Section 232--Expansion of Authority for Encouragement of Technology 
                                Transfer

    This section would amend section 2514 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Department of Defense laboratories 
and research and development centers to provide facilities, 
services, and equipment to private industry in order to promote 
accelerated development of critical technologies and technology 
transition initiatives that support the Department. Section 
2514 of title 10, United States Code, currently authorizes the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer technology between 
laboratories and research and development centers to other 
federal agencies and non-federal entities in order to improve 
the use and availability of dual-use technologies for 
commercial utilization.

          Section 233--Army Venture Capital Fund Demonstration

    This section would provide new authority to the Army 
venture capital fund demonstration to invest in companies with 
renewable energy technologies. Further, this section would 
authorize an additional $10.0 million within Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, to be available to the 
Army venture capital fund for investment in renewable energy 
technologies.
    The committee understands that under the existing 
authorities provided for the Army venture capital fund 
demonstration by section 8150 of the Department of Defense and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and 
Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 
(Public Law 107-117) as extended and revised in section 8105 of 
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2003 (Public Law 107-248), the venture capital fund 
demonstration operates with the availability of unobligated 
balances remaining in expiring Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation, Army, accounts. The new funding and expanded 
authority that would be provided by this section is not 
intended to alter the existing funding mechanism or existing 
authority.
    The committee understands that the Army venture capital 
fund demonstration, working in concert with the Department of 
the Army, has invested in companies with near-term technology 
solutions in the area of portable power and energy for the 
individual soldier that have resulted in technology 
improvements and cost savings to the Army. The committee 
believes this business model has the potential to help the Army 
make further progress towards meeting the Department of Defense 
goal of using 25 percent renewable energy by fiscal year 2025.

Section 234--Independent Tests for Combat Helmet Pad Suspension Systems

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
appoint the necessary Department of Defense representative to 
conduct independent, objective, transparent ballistic and non-
ballistic impact testing of product representatives of all 
qualified combat helmet pad suspension systems in all combat 
helmets currently fielded to armed forces personnel. This 
section would require the Secretary of Defense to report back 
to the congressional defense committees the results of these 
tests by September 30, 2008. The committee expects the tests 
would be conducted using a certified and qualified independent 
laboratory outside the government system. In addition, the 
tests would also include an operational user assessment of the 
qualified pad suspension systems that would consider key 
performance parameters of form, fit, function, cost, schedule, 
performance, and vendor production capacity. In addition, the 
committee also expects lessons learned from Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as feedback 
from soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines be considered as 
part of this test and evaluation and operational assessment. 
The committee recognizes that pad suspension systems provide 
needed force protection from blunt trauma and non-ballistic 
impacts.

   Section 235--Report on Implementation of Manufacturing Technology 
                                Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report by March 1, 2008, to the congressional defense 
committees on the implementation of technologies or processes 
developed under the Manufacturing Technology Program required 
by section 2521 of title 10, United States Code. This report 
would include the following elements: the Manufacturing 
Technology project under which the technology was developed, 
the federal and non-federal performing activities, the project 
duration, the total government funding required to mature and 
implement the technology, the total amount of industry cost 
share, and the total cost avoidance or cost savings associated 
with technology implementation. This report would include 
technologies implemented in manufacturing processes for 
military and commercial applications and would be limited to 
manufacturing technologies funded by the program since 2002.

  Section 236--Assessment of Sufficient Test and Evaluation Personnel

    This section would require the Director, Operational Test 
and Evaluation, to assess the sufficiency of the Director's 
professional staffing levels. The Office of the Director, 
Operational Test and Evaluation is currently required by 
section 139, title 10, United States Code, to maintain 
sufficient staff to perform all duties assigned to the 
Director. This section would require the Director to include 
the findings of such an assessment in the next operational test 
and evaluation activities annual report to be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees not later than 10 days after 
the transmission of the budget for the next fiscal year under 
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.

 Section 237--Repeal of Requirement for Separate Reports on Technology 
                  Area Review and Assessment Summaries

    This section would repeal section 253(c) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), which currently requires the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on each 
Technical Area Review and Assessment (TARA) conducted during 
that year. The committee notes that the Department is 
restructuring its science and technology planning process that 
no longer directly supports the traditional TARA reports. The 
committee expects the Secretary to readily provide this data to 
the congressional defense committees upon such a request.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The President's budget request contains approximately 
$235.3 billion in operation and maintenance funds to ensure the 
U.S. military can train, deploy, and sustain U.S. forces in 
operations at home and throughout the world. Although this 
request appears to increase spending by $2.7 billion over 
levels authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2007, it 
fails to account for $5.4 billion in additional expenses the 
Department of Defense expects due to inflation and rising fuel 
costs. In effect, the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2008 represents a $2.7 billion reduction when compared 
with fiscal year 2007 readiness expenditures.
    It is critical for the United States to provide the 
resources necessary to properly train and equip its men and 
women in uniform, to care for service members and their 
families, and to prepare the military to fight today's battles 
while deterring and defending against future threats. The 
committee believes the proposed funding level cannot fully 
address the Department of Defense's operation and maintenance 
needs while the military is engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom 
(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
    Because readiness is the foundation of U.S. military 
policy, the committee is gravely concerned with the declining 
readiness of U.S. ground and air forces. After five and one-
half years at war, the cumulative effort of fighting in 
multiple locations over a sustained period has negatively 
affected the military's readiness posture and impacted the 
services' ability to respond to emergent requirements. Military 
leaders face significant and sometimes insurmountable 
challenges as they seek to fulfill today's equipment and 
training needs.
    Equipment readiness, particularly for Army and Marine Corps 
ground forces, has been severely impacted by current operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army readiness has dropped to levels 
not seen since the 1970s. Some units deployed to locations 
other than Iraq and Afghanistan are operating without complete 
sets of equipment or adequate resources to train or execute 
their full-spectrum missions. The recent extension of Army 
deployments from 12 months to 15 months will be an additional 
burden on an already overstretched Army and will place further 
stress on unit readiness.
    Today, every non-deployed Army and National Guard combat 
brigade would face significant challenges completing their 
assigned missions if they were called upon to fight. Despite 
more than $35.0 billion in supplemental Congressional 
appropriations for the ongoing reset of the Army's equipment 
since 2001, deficiencies in equipment readiness persist and the 
readiness levels of the Army's non-deployed forces continue to 
fall to unprecedented lows. The Government Accountability 
Office has reported that the Army's current reset plan does not 
focus on improving the readiness of units preparing to enter 
the deployment window, nor does it mitigate the operational 
risk associated with reduced equipment readiness for units in 
the strategic base. This risk is evident in the declining 
readiness posture of ground units not currently deployed, in 
depleted prepositioned war stocks, and in National Guard units 
deprived of equipment needed for training.
    While the Navy shows some level of recovery in aviation 
readiness in fiscal year 2008, Air Force readiness continues to 
decline due to a high tempo of operations. Flying more than 200 
sorties per day in the Central Command area of responsibility, 
the Air Force's high utilization of a smaller, older air fleet 
has resulted in readiness rates that are 17 percent below unit 
operational readiness rates prior to September 11, 2001, and 
are below the all-time low levels observed last year. Despite a 
budget increase of $3.2 billion, or 11.7 percent, over the 
fiscal year 2007 appropriated level, the readiness budget 
request for the Air Force reflects a 10 percent reduction in 
flying hours and funds only 74 percent of the requirement for 
depot-purchased equipment maintenance. Air Force contractor 
logistics support is funded at 75 percent of the required 
level, and the budget also accepts reductions in spare parts 
and engine repairs.
    The committee believes that the Department and service 
secretaries must increase their efforts to anticipate, seek 
resources for, and manage the reset of damaged and destroyed 
equipment. These efforts must focus on using all authorities to 
maximize industrial capacity and manage assets. The committee 
urges the Department to place reset at a higher priority than 
transformation and modernization and to ensure that reset is 
providing an output that directly addresses readiness 
shortfalls. Long-term sustained action will be needed to truly 
address this crisis. Additional steps are taken toward this 
effort in Title XVII of this Act and through additional funding 
in Title XV.
    In addition to the equipment shortfalls, the committee is 
also concerned about degradation in training due to high 
operations tempo and funding reductions. The committee has 
noted that ground force training is focused solely on current 
operations and that full-spectrum combat training proficiency 
has declined precipitously. The high tempo of OIF and OEF has 
also reduced the time available for units to train between 
deployments. Constraints on time and equipment have forced 
commanders to seek efficiencies in completing required pre-
deployment training. Rotations at the National Training Center 
were eliminated for the last two brigade combat teams deployed 
to Iraq, with the units conducting home-station training in the 
states of Washington and Georgia, instead of in the desert at 
Fort Irwin, California.
    The focus on operations has also reduced the funding 
available for training. With the exception of naval aviation 
forces, all the services are currently funded well below the 
levels required to conduct the minimal training necessary to 
maintain adequate military readiness. The following examples 
illustrate the shortfalls in the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request:
          (1) The Army funds 582 tank miles a year, versus a 
        combined arms training strategy requirement of 846 
        miles;
          (2) The Army funds 11.6 helicopter flying hours per 
        month, versus a requirement of 13.1 hours helicopter 
        flying hours per month;
          (3) The Navy's non-deployed forces are reduced to 22 
        ship steaming days per quarter, relying upon simulation 
        exercises and improvements in training methods to 
        ensure readiness;
          (4) The Marine Corps funds 88 percent of the combat 
        ready days-equipment and training requirement; and
          (5) The Air Force funds 90 percent of the flying hour 
        training requirement while mission capable rates are 
        scheduled to fall below last year's nine-year low of 75 
        percent.
    The committee is concerned that training shortfalls are 
limiting the full-spectrum capability of our forces. Immediate 
action is required to stop the loss of critical combat skills. 
The committee has included $250.0 million for the Secretary of 
Defense to address training shortfalls throughout the services. 
These funds, which have been placed under the Army's Operating 
Forces budget line, should be used by the Secretary of Defense 
to address training readiness needs of units throughout the 
services on an urgent, emergent basis and to increase the 
overall training readiness posture of the services. The 
committee expects that the Department's future requests for 
training funds will reflect the services' actual training 
requirements. The Department must fully fund training and 
ensure every effort is made to increase the opportunities for 
unit and individual skill training.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                       Budget Request Adjustments

    The committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
fiscal year 2008 amended budget request:

[in millions of dollars]

Department of the Army Adjustments:
    BA 2  Army Prepositioned Stocks...........................    (70.0)
    BA 3  Leadership for Leaders Command and General Staff 
      College.................................................      +1.0
    BA 3  Air and Missile Defense Instrumentation System......      +1.4
    BA 4  Army Servicewide Communications--Other Contracts....    (43.0)
    Undistributed Readiness Training Restoration..............    +250.0
    Undistributed Operational Unobligated balances estimate...   (318.6)
    BA 1  National Guard Extended Cold Weather Clothing System      +2.0
    BA 1  National Guard M-Gators.............................      +1.0
    BA 1  National Guard ARNG Battery Modernization Program...      +2.0
    Undistributed Florida-New York Civil Support Team Increase      +0.6
Department of the Navy Adjustments:
    BA 1  Aircraft Depot Maintenance..........................     +91.6
    BA 1  Ship Reserve Maintenance............................     +12.0
    BA 1  Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command....................      +7.5
    BA 3  Naval Sea Cadet Corps...............................      +0.3
    BA 4  National Security Personnel System..................     (5.5)
    BA 4  A-76 Studies........................................     (3.9)
    BA 4  Naval Marine Corps Intranet.........................    (10.0)
    Undistributed Navy Operational Unobligated Balances 
      Estimate................................................   (202.6)
    Undistributed Navy Civilian Personnel Overstatement.......    (75.0)
    Undistributed Under-execution of End Strength.............    (12.0)
    Undistributed Under-execution of End Strength.............     (4.0)
United States Marine Corps Adjustments:
    BA 1  Multi-Voltage EMI Hardened Flourescent Stringable 
      Tent Lighting System....................................      +3.5
    BA 1  Family of Combat Equipment and Support..............     +10.0
    BA 1  Radar Set, 3-D Long-Range...........................     +12.0
    BA 4  Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program Support......    (20.0)
    Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances Estimate...    (42.9)
Department of the Air Force Adjustments:
    BA 1  MBU/P Oxygen Mask with Lights.......................      +2.0
    BA 1  Air Force Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance.....     +62.0
    BA 1  B-52 Attrition Reserve..............................     +63.0
    BA 1  Baselevel Communications Infrastructure.............    (40.0)
    BA 1  Cheyenne Mountain Transformation....................     (9.2)
    BA 1  Air Defense Contracts and Space Support.............    (15.0)
    BA 1  Maintain Fairchild AFB SAR Capability...............      +4.0
    BA 4  Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory..................      +0.3
    Undistributed Management Professional Support Service.....     (4.0)
    Undistributed Locally Purchased Fuel......................     (5.0)
    Undistributed Equipment Maintenance by Contract...........    (50.0)
    Undistributed Purchased Communications....................    (70.0)
    Undistributed Operational Unobligated Balances Estimate...   (200.4)
    Undistributed Florida-New York Civil Support Team Increase      +2.4
Defense-Wide Activities Adjustments:
    BA 4  National Guard Youth Challenge......................      +3.5
    BA 4  DOD STARBASE Program................................      +0.5
    BA 4  Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities 
      (CTMA)..................................................     +15.0
    BA 4  Procurement Technical Assistance Program............      +7.0
    BA 4  Defense Prisoner of War Missing Personnel Office....      +0.2
    BA 4  Global Force Management Visibility Toolset..........      +2.0
    BA 4  Parents as Teachers.................................      +3.0
    BA 4  Coming Together Around Military Families............      +6.5
    BA 4  Port of Corpus Christi Military Seaport 
      Infrastructure..........................................      +5.0
    BA 4  Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiatives..     +20.0
    Undistributed DOD Impact Aid BRAC and Force Structure.....     +15.0
    Undistributed Impact Aid for DOD Impacted Schools.........     +50.0
    Undistributed Connect and Join............................      +1.0
    Undistributed Cold War Victory Medal......................      +2.0
    Undistributed Combat Veterans Mentoring Program...........      +2.0
    Undistributed National Guard Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 
      Program.................................................     +23.0
    Undistributed Program to Commemorate 50th Anniversary of 
      Vietnam.................................................      +3.0

            Air Force Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance

    The budget request contained $2.7 billion for depot 
purchased equipment maintenance (DPEM) for active Air Force 
aircraft, engines, missiles, software, other major end items 
and storage for Air Force weapon systems and subsystems. Budget 
justification materials showed maintenance deferrals for 50 
aircraft and 91 engines. The committee recommends an increase 
of $62.0 million to help eliminate aircraft and engine 
deferrals across various platforms.

                       Army Prepositioned Stocks

    The budget contained a request for $156.3 million for the 
Army Prepositioned stocks. These funds are intended to support 
the storage and maintenance of the Army's prepositioned stocks 
of material. This material is stored in locations around the 
world and on afloat ships to facilitate rapid deployment in 
support of emergent contingencies. The committee notes that in 
fiscal year 2007, a significant portion of the material in the 
prepositioned stocks was drawn from these stocks to support 
Army requirements.
    The fiscal year 2008 request for maintaining the 
prepositioned stocks is $89.8 million higher than the fiscal 
year 2007 level. The committee is pleased that the Army has 
responded to concerns that more emphasis is needed on 
maintaining the prepositioned materiel. The committee, however, 
can not support all of the fiscal year 2008 requested increase 
as it is based on maintaining prepositioned material that has 
been issued and is no longer in the prepositioned stocks.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $86.3 million, a 
decrease of $70.0 million, for the Army Prepositioned Stocks.

                                  B-52

    The committee understands that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense 
Review directed the Air Force to reduce the B-52 force to 56 
aircraft and use the savings to fully modernize the remaining 
B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s to support global strike operations. The 
committee realizes that the current B-52 combat coded force 
structure of 44 is insufficient to meet combatant commander 
requirements for conventional long-range strike, if the need 
should arise to conduct near simultaneous operations in two 
major regional conflicts. The committee is deeply concerned 
that retirement of any B-52 aircraft prior to a replacement 
long-range strike aircraft reaching initial operational 
capability status is premature.
    The committee understands that the Air Force plans to 
modernize and upgrade only 56 of the total 76 B-52 aircraft in 
the inventory. The committee strongly opposes a strategy to 
reduce capability in present day conventional long-range strike 
capability without a replacement platform that is not projected 
to achieve initial operational capability until well into the 
future.
    The committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million for 
readiness of the entire B-52 bomber fleet. Additional increases 
have been made in Title I and section 401 of this Act, 
amounting to $20.0 million and $5.3 million, respectively.

                           Cheyenne Mountain

    The budget request contained $9.2 million to support the 
relocation of assets from Cheyenne Mountain to Peterson Air 
Force Base.
    The committee is concerned about US Northern Command 
(USNORTHCOM) plans to move the North American Aerospace Defense 
(NORAD) command center and related functions from Cheyenne 
Mountain to Peterson Air Force Base and create a single NORAD-
USNORTHCOM Command Center. The committee understands that 
USNORTHCOM has identified costs of about $42.0 million to 
integrate the command centers, but the full costs will not be 
known until the completion of ongoing security-related studies. 
The committee is also aware that USNORTHCOM expects the 
integrated center will improve unity of effort and create 
operational efficiencies. However, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) informed the committee that 
USNORTHCOM has not done an analysis that compares the estimated 
cost to the anticipated benefits.
    In section 356 of Title III, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the 
relocation of NORAD and directs the Secretary of Defense to 
wait for 180 days until relocation activities may commence. 
Furthermore, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 
prepare a report on their assessment of the proposed NORAD 
relocation plans within 60 days of receiving the Secretary of 
Defense report.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $9.2 million from 
the Air Force Cheyenne Relocation project to ensure sufficient 
time is available for the committee to review the 
recommendation.

                Corpus Christi Military Seaport Upgrades

    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to the 
Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment for the 
Port of Corpus Christi for military seaport infrastructure 
upgrades. Furthermore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$1.0 million to the Department of Defense Office of Economic 
Adjustment for the Department of Defense certified, Local Reuse 
Authority that is representative of the Coastal Bend, Corpus 
Christi, Texas area adversely affected by BRAC 2005.

         Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program Office Support

    The budget request contained $26.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance funding for program office support of the Marine 
Corps expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV).
    In light of the committee's reduction of the EFV 
developmental program in Title II due to suspension of the 
research and development program and delays in system 
development, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 
million in Operation and Maintenance funding for the EFV.

               Maintain 36th Rescue Flight, Fairchild AFB

    The budget request contained no funds for the 36th Rescue 
Flight (RQF) assigned to Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, 
Washington.
    The committee strongly supports the 36th RQF and is 
concerned that by not providing funding in the budget request 
the Department intends to deactivate this unit, without 
providing certifying information to Congress that equivalent 
search and rescue capabilities are available for the region and 
in support of the National Response Plan.
    The committee recommends $4.0 million to maintain this 
critical function.

                    Navy Aircraft Depot Maintenance

    The budget request contained $1.0 billion for depot 
maintenance for Navy active aircraft and $151.0 million for 
reserve aircraft depot maintenance. The goal of the airframe 
rework program is to provide enough airframes to meet 90 
percent of the goal for primary authorized aircraft (PAA) for 
non-deployed squadrons. The engine rework program objective is 
to fill 90 percent of authorized spare requirements for each 
engine type/model/series by returning engines/modules to a 
Ready-for-Issue (RFI) status. The budget request is sufficient 
to meet 79 and 85 percent of those goals, respectively, for 
active aircraft and to meet 74 percent of the PAA goal and 88 
percent of the engine RFI spares goal for reserve aircraft.
    The committee recommends an increase of $91.6 million to 
help reach the 90 percent goal for depot maintenance of Navy 
active and reserve aircraft airframes and engine spares.

           Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

    The budget request contained $30.0 million for the 
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI).
    The committee expects the secretaries of the military 
departments to use the authority and funding available through 
the REPI program to enter into agreements with willing entities 
to prevent or limit the use of property that would impede the 
mission of that military installation. The committee also 
supports the efforts to provide encroachment buffers at 
Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB).
    The committee recommends $50.0 million for the Readiness 
and Environmental Protection Initiative, an increase of $20.0 
million. Included in this increase is $3.0 million to support 
encroachment buffers at Whiteman AFB. The committee also 
encourages the Department of Defense to explore using this 
authority at McChord AFB.

                    Reserve Forces Ship Maintenance

    The budget request contained $42.0 million for Department 
of the Navy reserve forces ship maintenance, 78 percent of the 
projected maintenance requirement.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to 
buy down the projected deferred maintenance for fiscal year 
2008.

                          Environmental Issues


                      Marine Mammal Protection Act

    The committee is concerned that the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense authorized a two-year National Defense Exemption from 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) section 1361-1421h of 
title 16, United States Code, on January 23, 2007. The 
committee is aware that this exemption applies to military 
readiness activities involving mid-frequency active sonar or 
explosive sonobuoys either during major training exercises, or 
within established ranges and operating areas. The committee 
recognizes that this exemption is intended to span the duration 
of time during which the Department of the Navy is working to 
come into full compliance with the MMPA. Until such time as the 
Navy achieves full compliance with the MMPA, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Navy to document those specific 
activities undertaken under the authority of the National 
Defense Exemption. Further, the committee directs the Secretary 
of the Navy to submit a report on those activities to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by February 1, 2008. In addition, the committee 
encourages the Department to submit a report by February 1 of 
each subsequent year for as long as the exemption is in effect. 
The report shall include an assessment of the increase in 
military readiness and the estimated number and species of 
marine mammals injured and killed as a result of those 
activities undertaken under the authority of the exemption and 
an estimate of the population level effect, if any, on these 
species. Additionally, the report should provide an update on 
activities undertaken by the Navy to achieve full compliance 
with the MMPA.

    Study on Military Readiness and Exemptions to Environmental Laws

    The committee is aware of the often competing requirements 
for maintaining military readiness and protecting the 
environment. While the committee considers military readiness 
to be of utmost importance, the committee also holds the 
Department of Defense responsible for sound environmental 
management. The committee understands that for a number of 
years the Department has been granted exemptions for certain 
provisions of the Clean Air Act, section 7401 of title 42, 
United States Code; Clean Water Act, section 1251 of title 33, 
United States Code; Endangered Species Act section 1531 of 
title 16, United States Code; Noise Control Act, section 4901 
of title 42, United States Code; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 
section 6901 of title 42, United States Code; Safe Drinking 
Water Act, section 300f of title 42, United States Code; 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, section 701 of title 16, United 
States Code; Marine Mammal Protection Act, section 1361 of 
title 16, United States Code; and the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
section 9601 of title 42, United States Code. The committee 
would like to ensure that the exemptions provided under these 
acts have resulted in a measured increase in readiness and 
would like to broadly understand resulting impacts imposed on 
the environment.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a study on the extent to which the current 
environmental laws, regulations and exemptions are affecting 
the Department's training activities, readiness, and the 
environment. The study shall include the following: a 
determination of the full set of exemptions available to the 
Department; a review of how the exemptions have been used; an 
assessment of what incremental benefits to military readiness 
and impacts to the environment have resulted; and the extent to 
which the Department has systematically documented the effects 
of exemptions from environmental laws and regulations on 
training, readiness, and the environment. The report shall be 
submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2008.

                             Other Matters


                  Depot Maintenance Workload Carryover

    The committee is aware that the heavy workload requirements 
generated by Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation 
Enduring Freedom (OEF) are creating carryover issues for the 
services' depots, particularly Army and Marine Corps depots. 
Carryover is that portion of the maintenance program not 
completed during the year of funding obligation and carried 
into the next fiscal year. Under Department of Defense policy, 
the allowable amount of carryover is based on the outlay rate 
of the customers' appropriations financing the work. According 
to the Government Accountability Office, carryover is greatly 
affected by orders accepted by working capital fund activities 
late in the fiscal year that generally cannot be completed by 
fiscal year end, and in some cases cannot even be started prior 
to the end of the fiscal year. As a result, almost all orders 
accepted late in the fiscal year increase the amount of 
carryover. Due to the already-heavy OIF and OEF-related 
workload, the carryover problem for the depots is exacerbated 
when program offices, facing fiscal year-end spending 
challenges, load the depots with even more work.
    Until OIF and OEF and the ongoing reset of military 
equipment cease to generate exceptionally high levels of 
workload for the depots, the committee strongly recommends that 
the Department manage depot workloads so that the established 
carryover rules do not become a detriment to the organic 
depots.

          Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization

    The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has generally retained the fiscal discipline to avoid 
migrating funding from the sustainment, restoration and 
modernization accounts. This discipline will ensure that 
budgeted funding is available to support required maintenance 
of defense infrastructure. However, the committee remains 
concerned that the Department continues to underestimate the 
long-term cost implications related to underfunding the 
sustainment accounts and is disappointed in the amount for this 
account in fiscal year 2008 budget request.
    Since 2001, the Department has maintained a goal of fully 
funding the sustainment account and has implemented a 
sustainment model that measures the facilities requirements 
across the Department. This fiscal goal was established to 
ensure optimal sustainment funding was available that maximized 
the long-term investment. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2008 
budget contains the lowest level of funding since 
implementation of the model. The most egregious activities of 
underfunding the sustainment accounts include the Defense 
Health Program (funded at 87 percent of the stated 
requirement), the Department of the Navy (funded at 83 percent 
of the stated requirement) and the Department of Defense 
Education Activity (funded at 65 percent of the stated 
requirement). The committee is particularly concerned with the 
sustainment funding provided to medical activities and the 
resultant condition of facilities at these critical service 
nodes. If funding were provided as recommended in the budget 
request, the committee expects accelerated deterioration of 
DOD's infrastructure.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 
million for the Defense Health Program, sustainment, 
restoration and modernization account to fully fund sustainment 
in this critical area and most particularly at the Walter Reed 
Army Medical Center. Also, the committee encourages the 
Department to determine fiscal sustainment, restoration and 
modernization fiscal controls throughout the Department to 
avoid the wide disparities amongst the different components. 
Finally, the committee expects the Department to financially 
support their stated goals to fully fund sustainment in all 
accounts in the budget submission for fiscal year 2009.

                     Ground Combat Skills Training

    The committee is aware that the Navy and Air Force are 
planning to introduce new courses in combat first aid and heavy 
weapons training, skills more commonly associated with ground 
forces. The Navy is planning an eight-week expeditionary combat 
skills course for all sailors assigned to the Navy 
Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC). The course would focus on 
four aspects of ground warfare: moving, shooting, communicating 
and administering first aid. The committee understands that the 
Navy is looking at possible east coast and west coast locations 
for the course, as well as at Army and Marine Corps bases. The 
Air Force is already conducting combat skills training at Camp 
Andreson-Peters, Texas, and will be starting the Common 
Battlefield Airman Training Course as a five-day class with 
plans to expand it by 2010 to a 20-day class that would include 
physical fitness training, self-defense, advanced weapons 
training, combat medical skills, integrated base defense 
classes, land navigation, and tactical field operations. While 
initially the Air Force will use an Army training site, the 
committee understands that the Air Force is considering three 
candidate sites for a permanent school.
    The committee is very concerned about the creep of non-
traditional missions, such as ground combat skills, into the 
Navy and Air Force and the resulting potential weakening of 
those services' core competency skills. This movement of the 
Navy and Air Force into non-traditional roles and missions is 
evidenced in the increased use of ``in lieu of'' sailors and 
airmen to augment Army and Marine Corps ground combat forces in 
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sailors 
and airmen are increasingly being called upon to help drive 
trucks, provide security at deployed bases, and protect 
convoys. Jointness dictates that the services operate within 
their core competencies and seek the expertise of the service 
whose skills lie in a particular competency. While training of 
sailors and airmen in ground combat skills may be a necessity 
given current combat operations, the committee believes it 
should be treated as an exception rather than a reason to 
establish permanent training.
    The committee is hopeful that efforts by the Army and 
Marine Corps to increase their end strength permanently will 
help alleviate the pressure to use Navy and Air Force personnel 
in these ways. In Title IX of this Act, the committee directs 
action designed to review comprehensively review current 
Department of Defense roles and missions and the core 
capabilities of the respective military services.
    The committee strongly encourages the Navy and the Air 
Force to use existing ground combat skills training courses to 
avoid duplication of training already offered within the Marine 
Corps and Army.

   Impact of Contingency Operations on the Army Working Capital Fund

    The committee is concerned about the financial impact of 
ongoing military operations on the Army Working Capital Fund. 
Prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the Army 
Working Capital Fund in fiscal year 2002 showed $2.5 billion in 
orders with vendors for the purchase of inventory items. 
Because of increased customer demands due to the rapid 
deployment of large operating forces and high military 
operational tempo, the Army's fiscal year 2008 budget request 
shows this amount has grown substantially. Since fiscal year 
2004, the Army has sustained over $7.0 billion annually in 
orders with vendors. The Army estimates the level of 
undelivered orders will reach $7.5 billion in fiscal year 2007, 
almost three times the pre-war level.
    Following the end of OIF, the Department of Army will 
retain orders with vendors for inventory items purchased to 
sustain the war effort, but whose peacetime need is 
significantly reduced. Upon delivery of the ordered inventory 
items, the Army Working Capital Fund will need sufficient funds 
to pay for these items. The fiscal year 2008 budget request 
contained no funds for repayment of the $2.0 billion that was 
transferred from the Army Working Capital during fiscal years 
2004 and 2005 to the Operation and Maintenance accounts to 
support war-related requirements. But, the Army, in its budget 
justification material, still projects that ``at some point, 
all or part of the $2.0 billion transferred from the fund must 
be repaid so that the fund has sufficient cash to pay for 
material on order in the Supply Management activity group.'' 
The committee is very concerned about this growing financial 
requirement and the implications for future budget requests, 
the Department of Defense budget topline, and potential 
violation of the Antideficiency Act. Therefore, the committee 
strongly encourages the Department of Defense and the 
Department of the Army to develop a plan to repay the Army 
Working Capital Fund, ensuring its financial viability and 
limiting future reprogramming requests to only those with 
established repayment plans.

                 Lifecycle Sustainment Strategic Plans

    The committee believes that core logistics and source-of-
repair decisions are critical elements of a program's 
acquisition strategy and must be made early in the acquisition 
process to ensure adequate and appropriate organic technical 
repair and support capability. Furthermore, the committee 
believes that establishing a life-cycle strategic plan and a 
life-cycle program baseline early in the acquisition cycle 
could reduce life-cycle costs and enable strategic planning for 
adequate and appropriate workload in organic repair facilities. 
Such a plan would broadly examine key readiness drivers such as 
materiel availability, materiel reliability, total costs of 
ownership, and repair cycle times, and would facilitate 
decision-making and visibility on readiness enablers during 
program acquisition. The committee applauds the Air Force's 
December 2006 policy memorandum requiring a strategic source-
of-repair determination at a point in the acquisition cycle to 
allow an earlier assessment of the sustainment concept. 
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense 
to require development of a life-cycle program baseline and 
life-cycle strategic plan prior to system development and 
demonstration.

                      Military Tire Privatization

    The committee is aware that the Defense Logistics Agency 
recently let two contracts for supply and distribution of 
military tires for aviation and ground applications. The 
committee notes that these contracts were awarded under a 
program recommended in the 2005 Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Report which was required by the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 100-510), as 
amended. The committee expects that these contracts will 
produce significant savings in the acquisition, storage, and 
distribution of military tires. The committee is concerned, 
however, that the new program structure could reduce the 
incentive for the incumbent military tire provider to maximize 
competition in the production of military tires. The committee 
expects the Defense Logistics Agency, in managing contracts for 
supply and distribution of military tires, to ensure, to the 
maximum extent practicable, that all qualified mobilization 
base tire manufacturers have a fair and equal opportunity to 
compete.

                         Prime Vendor Contracts

    Prime Vendor (PV) contracts allow military customers to buy 
commercial products directly from a pre-established commercial 
distributor. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
supported the PV concept as a method of cost savings through 
reduced inventories. In the 1990s, Congress encouraged the 
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to use the PV program to 
eliminate warehouses stocked with millions of dollars of 
material. Although there have been problems, particularly 
concerning allegations of overpricing of certain items in the 
food service program which the committee investigated in 2005, 
the committee is encouraged by actions taken by DLA to improve 
its management oversight and internal controls over the 
program. In recent reports, the GAO highlighted deficiencies 
related to management and oversight of the program, which DLA 
is attempting to address, but GAO noted that not all corrective 
actions are complete. DLA adjusted its acquisition strategy for 
commodities not suitable for the PV concept and introduced 
specific requirements to ensure price reasonableness 
determinations across the program. In addition, DLA senior 
leadership demonstrated their commitment to the PV program by 
implementing an annual certified training program and 
establishing a senior civilian acquisition position to oversee 
the PV program. The committee encourages the DLA to continue 
its efforts to improve efficiencies and increase optimum value 
in the services and supplies needed to satisfy the requirements 
of the military departments.

          Program for Tracking High-Altitude Aviation Training

    The committee believes that high-altitude aviation training 
can reduce helicopter accidents by ensuring that crews are 
properly trained and current in the procedures for operating in 
high elevations and mountainous terrain. The committee is aware 
that pilots who complete high altitude aviation training are 
not formally tracked by the Army. Therefore, the committee 
strongly urges the Secretary of the Army to implement a program 
for tracking those pilots that have attended a school with an 
established program of instruction for high altitude aviation 
operations training. The program should, if practical, utilize 
an existing system that permits the query of pilot flight 
experience and training and shall also annotate location and 
date of training for any high altitude aviation training.

 Senior Scientific Technical Manager Positions at Naval Warfare Centers

    The committee believes a key to attracting, developing and 
retaining the high-caliber technical talent essential for the 
Navy's future is to provide career growth and leadership 
opportunities at naval warfare centers. Senior Scientific 
Technical Manager (SSTM) positions are well suited to provide 
the needed career growth potential. However, the number of 
these positions is limited to 40 across the naval warfare 
centers. In order to enable the transformation of the Naval Sea 
Systems Command (NAVSEA) into a competency-aligned organization 
that can attract and retain the talent needed to develop and 
support Navy programs, the committee urges the Department of 
the Navy to revise current regulations and allow up to one 
percent of the engineering and scientific positions at NAVSEA 
warfare centers to be designated as SSTM positions.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations


             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

    This section would authorize $142.5 billion in operation 
and maintenance funding for the military departments and 
defense-wide activities.

                   Section 302--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize $2.9 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 $25.1 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--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 
 Certain Costs in Connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, 
                         Moses Lake, Washington

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer not more than $91,588.51 to the Moses Lake Wellfield 
Superfund Site 10-6J Special Account. This transfer is to 
reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency for its costs in 
overseeing a remedial investigation/feasibility study performed 
by the Department of the Army under the Defense Environmental 
Restoration Program at the former Larson Air Force Base, Moses 
Lake Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington.

   Section 312--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 
  Certain Costs in Connection with the Arctic Surplus Superfund Site, 
                           Fairbanks, Alaska

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer not more than $186,625.38 to the Hazardous Substance 
Superfund to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency for 
costs incurred pursuant to U.S. EPA Docket Number CERCLA-10-
2003-0114.

Section 313--Payment to EPA of Stipulated Penalties in Connection with 
                Jackson Park Housing Complex, Washington

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
transfer not more than $40,000.00 to the Hazardous Substance 
Superfund to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency for 
costs incurred pursuant to U.S. EPA Docket Number CERCLA-10-
2005-0023.

                 Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues


Section 321--Increase in Threshold Amount for Contracts for Procurement 
 of Capital Assets in Advance of Availability of Working-Capital Funds 
                          for the Procurement

    This section would amend section 2208 of title 10, United 
States Code to increase the authority for the acquisition of 
capital assets through the Working Capital Fund from $0.1 
million to $0.3 million.
    The original intent of capital asset authority for the 
working capital fund was to decrease procurement lead times, 
implement steady workload requirements at maintenance depots, 
and improve supplier workload coordination with the private 
sector. The committee expects that by raising this authority, 
maintenance depots would be able to acquire components in 
advance of the availability of funds and thereby optimize depot 
capacity and flexibility. Consequently, this increased 
authority would enable the military services to accelerate 
technology refreshment of critical warfighter equipment.
    Accordingly, the committee is concerned that the Financial 
Management Regulation (FMR) limits the opportunity to provide 
technology refreshment and insertion. The committee encourages 
the Secretary of Defense to consider potential changes to the 
FMR that would allow for continuous technology refreshment and 
insertion of components or systems that would significantly 
improve the performance envelope of the end item.

Section 322--Authorization of Availability of Working-Capital Funds for 
                      Certain Product Improvements

    This section would amend section 2208 of title 10, United 
States Code, by adding a new paragraph at the end that gives 
limited authorization to the Department to use Defense Working 
Capital Funds to make limited product improvements for weapon 
systems, major end items, and components.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITEs) will not 
be able to incorporate commercial technologies into existing 
components, assemblies, spares and repair parts, and other 
items of equipment based on the lessons learned in the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the weapon system platforms used 
in combat today have exceeded the projected average age for 
use. The ability to use technology insertion and refreshment 
during depot maintenance availabilities to change the 
performance capability of the end item to mitigate obsolescence 
and improve performance is critical to the reset and 
recapitalization of our warfighting platforms.

    Section 323--Authorization of Use of Working-Capital Funds for 
                      Acquisition of Certain Items

    This section would amend section 2208 of title 10, United 
States Code, by adding a new paragraph at the end that would 
establish dollar thresholds for the Defense Working Capital 
Funds to acquire items that support maintenance and technology 
refreshment and ensure the viability of core logistics 
capabilities.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITEs) will not 
be able to insert technology to improve reliability and 
maintainability, extend the useful life, enhance safety, lower 
maintenance costs, provide performance enhancement or expand 
the performance capability of weapons system platforms by the 
acquisition of critical new components, assemblies, spares and 
repair parts, and other items of equipment during depot 
maintenance availabilities. This provision would provide 
limited flexibility for the CITEs to replace obsolete 
components with newer technology replacements to perform weapon 
system modifications, improvement and service-life extensions 
during maintenance availabilities.

 Section 324--Modification to Public-Private Competition Requirements 
              Before Conversion to Contractor Performance

    This section would exclude health care and retirement costs 
from the cost comparison process used for public-private 
competitions conducted pursuant to section 2461 of title 10, 
United States Code. This exclusion would apply if the 
contractor's contribution towards its employees' benefits is 
less than what the Congress requires the Department of Defense 
(DOD) to contribute for the benefits of federal civilian 
employees. This section, however, would not require contractors 
to provide the same level of health and retirement benefits as 
DOD. Moreover, contractors would receive full credit for using 
alternatives to traditional health care and defined benefit 
pension plans, including health savings accounts, 401(k) plans, 
individual savings accounts, or profit sharing plans.
    This section also would strike 2467 of title 10, United 
States Code. The requirement at paragraph (b) for monthly 
consultations with employees affected by public-private 
competitions would be added to section 2461 of title 10, United 
States Code.

Section 325--Public Private Competition at End of Performance Specified 
                 in Performance Agreement Not Required

    This section would allow Department of Defense managers to 
determine whether to recompete (after five years) work being 
performed by federal employees that was won by the employees 
under a public-private competition process, pursuant to Office 
of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or section 2461 of title 
10, United States Code.

 Section 326--Guidelines on Insourcing New and Contracted Out Functions

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement guidance 
to provide managers within the Department of Defense (DOD) and 
the military services with the flexibility to consider using 
federal civilian employees for work that is new or currently 
being performed by contractors in certain circumstances. The 
guidance must be developed within 60 days after enactment and 
no public-private competition studies could be conducted until 
such guidance is issued. The section also would require the 
Department to establish an inventory of the functions being 
performed by contractors. Within 90 days after date of 
enactment, the DOD Inspector General would be required to 
provide an assessment to the congressional defense committees 
of the implementation of the guidance and the establishment of 
the inventory.

   Section 327--Additional Requirements for Annual Report on Public-
                          Private Competitions

    This section would amend section 2462 of title 10, United 
States Code, to add additional elements to the annual report on 
the results of public-private competitions conducted by the 
Department of Defense.

 Section 328--Restriction on Office of Management and Budget Influence 
         over Department of Defense Public-Private Competitions

    This section would prohibit the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) from requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
meet any OMB-imposed quotas on public-private competitions 
conducted under OMB Circular A-76. In the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 108-7), 
Congress directed that such competition quotas could only be 
used if they are based on an analysis of past activities and 
are consistent with the stated mission of the executive agency. 
The committee is concerned that in order to meet OMB 
performance ratings, the Department and all federal agencies 
continue to be assigned specific competition quotas.
    The committee notes that this section in no way prevents 
DOD managers from subjecting federal civilian employees to OMB 
Circular A-76 reviews. However, such decisions must be made 
independently of any direction or requirement from OMB.

    Section 329--Public-Private Competition Bid Protests by Federal 
                               Employees

    This section would give federal employees appeal rights to 
have contracting out-related decisions, whether or not 
conducted using Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular 
A-76 procedures, reviewed by the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO). A majority of employees performing a function or 
activity would be allowed to choose a representative to appeal 
such decisions to the GAO, and to intervene in actions before 
the Court of Federal Claims.
    Section 326 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) 
allows an appeal to be filed on behalf of federal employees by 
an Agency Tender Official (ATO), a senior procurement official 
acting on behalf of the employees, only in A-76 competitions. 
However, the committee is concerned that federal employees may 
not be adequately represented and questions whether an agency 
tender official would have sufficient resources to employ 
qualified counsel. Furthermore, the committee notes that there 
are many instances in which there is no ATO at all, such as in 
a streamlined OMB Circular A-76 competition, which can include 
up to 65 employees.

 Section 330--Public Private Competition Required Before Conversion to 
                         Contractor Performance

    This section would make government-wide the revisions made 
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163) to the conduct of public-private 
competitions by the Department of Defense under section 2461, 
title 10, United States Code.

     Section 331--Reauthorization and Modification of Multi-Trades 
                         Demonstration Project

    This section would reauthorize and expand section 338 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 
(Public Law 108-136) to allow the Secretary of the Air Force 
and the Secretary of the Navy to conduct demonstration projects 
to evaluate the benefits of promoting workers who perform 
multiple trades. Wage grade journeymen at Air Force Air 
Logistics Centers and Navy Fleet Readiness Centers would 
qualify to learn an additional trade and be rewarded with a 
one-grade promotion. The section explains that the worker must 
use the new trades at least 25 percent of the time during the 
worker's work week. It also would require the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to report to the congressional 
defense committees on the demonstration project within 30 days 
after the last day of the fiscal year in which the 
demonstration project occurs.

              Subtitle D--Extension of Program Authorities


      Section 341--Extension of Arsenal Support Program Initiative

    This section would amend Section 343 of the Floyd D. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 
Law 106-398) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to extend 
the Arsenal Support Initiative Program through fiscal year 
2010.

  Section 342--Extension of Period for Reimbursements for Helmet Pads 
   Purchased by Members of the Armed Forces Deployed in Contingency 
                               Operations

    This section would extend the period during which members 
of the armed forces deployed in contingency operations may 
request and receive reimbursement for helmet pads that are 
purchased at personal expense. This section would cover 
purchases made through September 30, 2007, and would give the 
service member up to a year to submit a claim for 
reimbursement. This section does not allow reimbursement for 
purchases made on behalf of a service member. Reimbursements 
would be derived from supplemental appropriations for ongoing 
military operations.

                          Subtitle E--Reports


 Section 351--Inclusion of National Guard Readiness for Civil Support 
       Missions in Quarterly Personnel and Unit Readiness Report

    This section would require the Department of Defense (DOD) 
to begin reporting on the readiness of the National Guard to 
respond to civil support mission requirements. The report would 
be included in the quarterly readiness report to Congress 
provided to the congressional defense committees and also 
reported to the state governors.
    The committee is concerned that the National Guard, with 
its dual federal and state roles, has been in demand to meet 
both evolving overseas operations and emerging homeland 
security requirements. During the response to Hurricane 
Katrina, over 50,000 National Guard members from all 50 states 
were activated to assist in the response effort, illustrating 
the nation's reliance on National Guard forces to respond to 
large-scale, multi-state events. Until recently, it has been 
assumed that the National Guard could perform its typical civil 
support missions with the equipment it had on-hand for its 
federal warfighting missions. However, the National Guard's 
equipment inventories in the United States have significantly 
decreased because of overseas operations, particularly in the 
Army National Guard.
    While the Department measures the readiness of all of its 
forces for their wartime missions, it does not routinely 
measure the readiness of National Guard forces for their civil 
support missions. The Secretary of Defense is required by 
section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a 
comprehensive readiness reporting system with which the 
Department can measure the military's capability to carry out 
the National Security Strategy, Defense Planning Guidance, and 
the National Military Strategy in an objective, accurate and 
timely manner. The Department is also required to report to 
Congress on the status of the National Guard's equipment 
readiness for its wartime missions, but it is not required to 
report readiness of its civil support missions. Without a 
routine system for assessing National Guard readiness, the 
Department of Defense, Congress and the state governors lack 
information on whether the National Guard has the resources it 
needs to respond effectively to the consequences of natural or 
manmade disasters. As the Department defines domestic mission 
requirements, it will be better able to assess shortfalls and 
target investments to highest priority needs to ensure that the 
National Guard is prepared to respond to domestic events. This 
report would allow Congress and the governors to oversee Guard 
readiness and ensure resources are properly applied to address 
potential risks.

Section 352--Plan to Improve Readiness of Active and Reserve Component 
                             Ground Forces

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense 
submit a report on the readiness of the ground forces to the 
congressional defense committees. This report would call for an 
assessment of current readiness and a plan for improving the 
readiness of active and reserve component units. This report 
would be required annually and would be submitted at the same 
time as the President's budget request. The report would be 
reviewed by the GAO and the results of this review sent to the 
congressional defense committees. This report and plan would 
include the following components:
          (1) A summary of the current reported readiness of 
        all reporting units and a summary of the reported 
        readiness of the services' major combat units by 
        readiness level as reflected in the Department of 
        Defense's (DOD) Status of Resources and Training 
        system;
          (2) The extent to which actual readiness ratings are 
        being upgraded based on commanders' judgment, and DOD's 
        efforts to analyze trends and implications of such 
        upgrades;
          (3) DOD's goals for managing readiness in terms of 
        the number of units and/or percentage of the force that 
        it plans to maintain at the various levels of readiness 
        and the timeframes for achieving these goals;
          (4) A prioritized list of items and actions that the 
        Department believes are needed to significantly improve 
        the readiness of units and achieve the aforementioned 
        goals and timeframes; and
          (5) A detailed investment strategy and plan by fiscal 
        year for each year of the Future Years Defense program 
        that outlines the resources needed to implement DOD's 
        plan for improving readiness, including how resources 
        identified in this plan related to funding requested in 
        DOD's annual budget, and how these resources will 
        specifically enable the Department to achieve its 
        readiness goals in desired timeframes.
    Given the demands on the Department to meet commitments 
associated with ongoing operations, the intensity and duration 
of these operations, and the need for the Department to 
maintain the capability to meet other commitments beyond these 
operations, the committee is becoming increasingly concerned 
about the near-term and long-term readiness of the total force, 
particularly with respect to the Army and Marine Corps. 
Furthermore, DOD's plans to increase the size of the Army and 
Marine Corps will add additional challenges to maintaining a 
trained and ready force. Despite significant funding provided 
to the Department in the past few years to address readiness 
needs, particularly for equipping, manning, and training, 
readiness trends continue to decline. The committee believes 
that the Department of Defense must arrest this decline and 
rebuild degraded ground forces.

 Section 353--Plan for Optimal Use of Strategic Ports by Commander of 
              Surface Distribution and Deployment Command

    This section would require the commander of the Surface 
Distribution and Deployment Command (SDDC) to develop a plan to 
ensure optimal use of strategic ports, to include consultation 
with the local port authority where there is no SDDC presence. 
The committee is concerned that there is no guidance related to 
assignment of priorities for use of strategic ports or 
regarding the determination of where there should be an SDDC 
presence and coordination with local authorities where there is 
no SDDC presence. Additionally, the committee is troubled by 
the absence of guidance pertaining to the allocation of 
materials and facilities to meet the Department of Defense's 
national security needs.

    Section 354--Independent Assessment of Civil Reserve Air Fleet 
                               Viability

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide for an independent assessment of the viability of the 
Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) to be conducted by a federally-
funded research and development center. The committee is 
concerned about the risks to the charter air industry as a 
result of the expanded use of these carriers by the Department 
of Defense (DOD). Since September 11, 2001, the Department has 
significantly increased its global mobility requirements with 
much of this business focused on a small segment of the charter 
air industry. The committee is concerned that too great a 
reliance on DOD business versus commercial business could have 
a negative impact on these carriers should the Department's 
requirements suddenly change. Therefore, the assessment shall 
examine defense planning for organic lift requirements, 
commercial market factors including the impact of over-reliance 
on DOD business, and any barriers to the viability of CRAF. The 
report shall also include recommendations for improving the 
CRAF program. The report would be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees by April 1, 2008.

          Section 355--Annual Report on Materiel and Equipment

    This section would amend chapter 131 of title 10, United 
States Code, by adding a section to require the Secretary of 
Defense to report to the congressional defense committees 
annually on the material in the prepositioned stocks. This 
report, which would be submitted by the distribution date of 
the President's budget request, must provide detail on the 
following:
          (1) The level of fill for major end items of 
        equipment and spare parts in each prepositioned set as 
        of the end of the fiscal year covered by the report.
          (2) The material condition for equipment in 
        prepositioned stocks rated according to the Department 
        of Defense Status of Resources and Training system and 
        grouped by category or major end item.
          (3) A list of major end items of equipment drawn from 
        the stocks in the prior year and how that equipment was 
        used and if it was returned to the stocks.
          (4) A timeline for reconstitution of shortfalls in 
        the prepositioned stocks.
          (5) An estimate of the funds required to restore 
        stocks to 100% and the funding plan.
          (6) A list of Operations Plans affected by any 
        shortfalls and actions taken to mitigate risk that 
        prepositioned shortfalls may create.
    The Department of Defense's report must address combat 
equipment, sustainment and ammunition in stocks held by any of 
the services. The report would be unclassified and may contain 
a classified annex. The Government Accountability Office would 
review the report and provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees on their findings.
    The committee recognizes the tremendous strategic 
flexibility that prepositioned materiel offers the combatant 
commanders. The committee is very concerned, however, with the 
depletion of this material to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. 
The committee believes that the degraded posture of the 
prepositioned materiel stocks significantly increases strategic 
risk to U.S. interests. The committee believes that the current 
plan for reconstituting the prepositioned stocks is not 
supported by a solid plan to reset, acquire equipment or to 
fund the requirement. The committee expects that the report 
required by this section will address these concerns.

   Section 356--Conditions on Relocation of North American Aerospace 
Defense Command Center and Related Operations from Cheyenne Mountain to 
                        Peterson Air Force Base

    This section would suspend relocation efforts from Cheyenne 
Mountain to Peterson Air Force Base until the Secretary of 
Defense submits a report on the costs and benefits associated 
with the relocation and completion of a review by the 
Comptroller General.

           Section 357--Report on Public-Private Partnerships

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services and 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 2008, on the 
public-private partnerships at the Department of Defense 
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITEs). 
Required elements of the report are a description of common 
approaches and procedures, cost methodologies and reimbursement 
guidance, contract negotiation procedures, commercial 
practices, Class 2 design authority, and plans to expand core 
capabilities.
    The committee is concerned that the CITEs are not using 
consistent approaches for public-private partnerships. The 
committee understands that the lack of uniform standards has 
created an environment where these partnerships take between 
two to four years to implement. The committee believes that 
without a standard approach for the military departments, the 
CITEs will not be able to adopt best-business practices, 
maintain core competency requirements, maximize existing 
facility capacity, decrease the cost of services and products, 
or lower the cost of maintaining the logistics infrastructure.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Section 361--Authority for Department of Defense to Provide Support for 
                        Certain Sporting Events

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
support sporting events sanctioned by the United States Olympic 
Committee (USOC) through the Paralympic Military Program. The 
USOC Paralympic Military Program provides opportunities for 
military personnel and veterans with service-connected physical 
disabilities to participate in sporting competitions as a 
regular and ongoing part of their rehabilitation and recovery. 
Additionally, this section would authorize the Secretary to 
support for USOC-sanctioned national or international 
paralympic sporting events that are governed by the 
International Paralympic Committee, when those events are held 
in the United States and when participation exceeds 100 amateur 
athletes. The section would also authorize funding for support 
of these events to be provided from the Department of Defense 
account for the Support For International Sporting 
Competitions, with the limitation that funding may not exceed 
more than $1.0 million in any fiscal year.

Section 362--Reasonable Restrictions on the Payment of Full Replacement 
 Value for Lost or Damaged Personal Property Transported at Government 
                                Expense

    This section would allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
require compliance with reasonable conditions for military or 
civilian DOD employees to receive full replacement value 
coverage for lost or damaged personal property. This section 
offers guidance on additional implementation of section 363 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). Section 363 mandated that the 
Department provide full replacement value to military and 
civilian employees through a contract with a transportation 
provider, effective March 1, 2008.
    Providing full replacement value would boost morale for DOD 
military and civilian employees who must undergo several moves 
throughout their career. An unintended consequence of such 
policies, however, may be the impact on capable and viable 
small businesses that may not be able to afford the necessary 
insurance. This section would require the Secretary of Defense 
to analyze participation by small companies in the Full 
Replacement Value program and make any necessary 
recommendations for improving small business participation in 
the program.

Section 363--Priority Transportation on Department of Defense Aircraft 
  of Retired Members Residing in Commonwealths and Possessions of the 
             United States for Certain Health Care Services

    This section would amend section 2641 of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide space-available transportation on 
Department of Defense aircraft for TRICARE beneficiaries 
between a U.S. territory and another location if such 
transportation is necessary in order to provide specialized 
care that is not otherwise available in the U.S. territory in 
which they are located. Such TRICARE beneficiaries would retain 
a priority level equivalent to that provided to unaccompanied 
dependents on environmental and morale leave. The TRICARE 
beneficiary afforded space-available transportation under this 
section would be entitled to have a single dependent accompany 
them with the same priority.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-89) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to reassess the Air 
Force's decision to discontinue funding support for TRICARE 
beneficiaries and their family members living within the 
Pacific Air Forces area of responsibility, or revise the DOD 
policy for reimbursement of certain travel expenses covered in 
section 1074i of title 10, United States Code, to include all 
eligible TRICARE beneficiaries residing in the flag territories 
of the United States. The Department reported that the Joint 
Federal Travel Regulation does not authorize government-funded 
travel for routine medical care (including referred specialty 
appointments) for military retirees and their family members 
living overseas. This section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to identify the administrative actions that are needed 
to be executed in order to provide relief to the affected 
TRICARE beneficiaries residing in the flag territories of the 
United States and to communicate the Secretary's strategy for 
implementing such administrative actions in a report to 
Congress by January 31, 2008.

           Section 364--Recovery of Missing Military Property

    This section would amend sections 2788 and 2789 of title 
10, United States Code, to make uniform the manner by which the 
military departments recover missing military property. The 
Army and the Air Force presently each have statutes that 
facilitate the recovery of missing military property, sections 
4832 and 4836 and sections 9832 and 9836 of title 10, United 
States Code, respectively, but the Navy and Marine Corps do not 
have equivalents to either statute and, accordingly, recovery 
of missing Navy and Marine Corps property is not handled in the 
same manner as similar instances of missing Army or Air Force 
property. This section would clarify that there is no such 
thing as a ``holder in due course'' or a ``bona fide purchaser 
without notice'' of U.S. military property. This section would 
also uniformly place the burden to prove title on the property 
holder and would allow the immediate recovery of the missing 
property.

   Section 365--Retention of Army Combat Uniforms by Members of Army 
             Deployed in Support of Contingency Operations

    This section would allow the Secretary of the Army to allow 
soldiers deployed more than 30 days in support of contingency 
operations to retain the exterior articles of the Army combat 
uniform that were issued for the deployment.

 Section 366--Issue of Serviceable Material Other than to Armed Forces

    This section would extend, unto all of the services, the 
existing Army authority to issue excess arms, tentage and 
equipment to Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) in 
support of training. The weapons issued for training would be 
magazine rifles that are not the current service model and a 
limited amount of ammunition. This section would also grant 
authority to the services to establish camps for JROTC cadet 
training.

     Section 367--Prohibition on Deactivation of 36th Rescue Flight

    This section would prohibit any action by the U.S. Air 
Force to deactivate the 36th Rescue Flight (RQF) assigned to 
Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Washington. The committee 
strongly supports the 36th RQF and is very concerned that the 
Air Force intends to deactivate the unit without certifying to 
Congress that equivalent search and rescue capabilities are 
available for the region in support of the National Response 
Plan. Section 1085 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) 
required certification that ``equivalent search and rescue 
capabilities will be provided, without interruption'' before 
search and rescue capabilities at a military installation may 
be eliminated or reduced.
    The committee notes that the 36th RQF is part of the 
National Search and Rescue Plan and provides search and rescue 
support to parts of Washington, Idaho, Montana and Oregon and 
has been credited with saving over 600 lives since its 
inception in 1971. The committee also notes that the 36th RQF 
is the only search and rescue unit in the region with 
helicopters equipped with night vision goggles, on-board flight 
medics, a hoist, forward looking infrared, and crews trained 
for operations in inclement weather and rugged terrain.

  Section 368--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds for Initial Flight 
                  Screening at Pueblo Memorial Airport

    This section would prohibit the expenditure of funds for 
initial flight screening at Pueblo Memorial Airport in Pueblo, 
Colorado, until the Air Force and the City of Pueblo have 
developed a plan to meet the Air Force crash, fire and rescue 
requirements to support Air Force flight training operations at 
Pueblo Memorial Airport. The committee notes that the report 
required by section 346 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) has 
not been delivered to the congressional defense committees.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for 
proposing to permanently increase the authorized end strength 
for the active Army to 547,000, and to 202,000 for the active 
Marine Corps by fiscal year 2012. However, the President's 
request only contained funding for an increase of 7,000 for the 
Army and an increase of 5,000 for the Marine Corps in fiscal 
year 2008. The committee remains concerned that the budget 
request for the active components of the Army and the Marine 
Corps is too low for the current requirements placed on those 
services by the national security strategy. The committee 
continues to recommend active end strength levels greater than 
those requested. The committee's recommendation for fiscal year 
2008 would increase the active Army end strength by 36,000 and 
the Marine Corps end strength by 9,000 above the budget 
request.
    The committee is concerned that continued military-to-
civilian conversions, particularly within the military medical 
community, are having an adverse impact on access and quality-
of-care being provided to service members and their families. 
The committee heard directly from military families facing 
difficulties in accessing care at military treatment facilities 
during a hearing on total force readiness. In addition, the 
treatment of wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical 
Center and at other military medical treatment facilities 
requires a review of the assumptions and evaluations that were 
previously made in support of these conversions. Therefore, the 
committee proposes to prohibit further military-to-civilian 
conversions in the military medical community in section 703 of 
this Act, and proposes to restore the end strength and 
associated funding for the conversions, as well as restore the 
proposed manpower reductions as directed in program decision 
memorandum four for Navy medicine for fiscal year 2008.

                         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, 2008:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2008                    Change from
                                            FY 2007    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2008        FY 2007
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..................................         512,400      489,400         525,400       36,000          13,000
Navy..................................         340,700      328,400         329,098          698         -11,602
USMC..................................         180,000      180,000         189,000        9,000           9,000
Air Force.............................         334,200      328,600         329,651        1,051          -4,549
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................       1,367,300    1,326,400       1,373,149       46,749           5,849
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authorizations contained in this section for the Army 
and Marine Corps exceed the end strengths for those services 
requested in the fiscal year 2008 budget by 36,000 and 9,000, 
respectively, because the budget request did not provide 
adequate manning levels for the Army and Marine Corps to meet 
current operational requirements. Additional funding for this 
end strength increase is recommended in Title XV of this Act.
    The authorizations contained in this section for the Army, 
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force end strengths include 489 for 
the Navy to restore the reduction in end strength in Navy 
Medicine, and it would also restore the military end strength 
for the Navy by 209 and the Air Force by 963, which was reduced 
to accommodate the military-to-civilian conversions programmed 
for fiscal year 2008 as directed by Program Budget Decision 
712. The proposed increase in Army end strength would 
accommodate the restoration of 723 military positions within 
the Army.
    In addition, the committee understands that the Air Force 
plans to modernize and upgrade only 56 of the total 76 B-52 
aircraft in the inventory. The committee strongly opposes a 
strategy to reduce capability in present day conventional long-
range strike capability without a replacement platform and 
recommends an authorization increase of 88 enlisted manpower 
personnel for the B-52 bomber fleet and provides $5.3 million 
for the additional end strength.

  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, 2008. The committee recommends 525,400 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Army, 329,098 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Navy, 189,000 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 
329,563 as the minimum active duty end strength for the Air 
Force.

  Section 403--Additional Authority for Increases of Army and Marine 
     Corps Active Duty End Strengths for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010

    This section would authorize additional increases of active 
duty end strength for the Army and for the Marine Corps in 
fiscal years 2009 and 2010 above the strengths authorized for 
those services in fiscal year 2008. Over the two-year period, 
the Army would be authorized to increase active duty end 
strength above the fiscal year 2008 authorization up to a total 
of 22,000, and the Marine Corps would be authorized to increase 
active duty end strength above the fiscal year 2008 
authorization up to a total of 13,000.

  Section 404--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Army Officers on 
                   Active Duty in the Grade of Major

    This section would increase the number of Army officers 
authorized to serve in the grade of major by approximately 
2,850 from 13,300 to 16,150.

  Section 405--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Navy Officers on 
   Active Duty in the Grades of Lieutenant Commander, Commander, and 
                                Captain

    This section would increase the number of Navy officers 
authorized to serve in the grades lieutenant commander, 
commander, and captain as indicated below:
          (1) Lieutenant commander by approximately 480 from 
        9,550 to 10,030;
          (2) Commander by approximately 300 from 6,000 to 
        6,300; and
          (3) Captain by approximately 130 from 2,620 to 2,750.

                       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, 2008:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2008                    Change from
                                            FY 2007    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2008        FY 2007
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................         350,000      351,300         351,300            0           1,300
Army Reserve..........................         200,000      205,000         205,000            0               0
Navy Reserve..........................          71,300       67,800          67,800            0          -3,500
Marine Corps Reserve..................          39,600       39,600          39,600            0               0
Air National Guard....................         107,000      106,700         106,700            0            -300
Air Force Reserve.....................          74,900       67,500          67,500            0          -7,400
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................         842,800      837,900         837,900            0          -9,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2008:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2008                    Change from
                                            FY 2007    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2008        FY 2007
                                                          request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................          28,165       29,204          29,240           36           1,075
Army Reserve..........................          15,416       15,870          15,870            0             454
Naval Reserve.........................          12,564       11,579          11,579            0            -985
Marine Corps Reserve..................           2,261        2,261           2,261            0               0
Air National Guard....................          13,291       13,936          13,944            8             653
Air Force Reserve.....................           2,707        2,721           2,721            0              14
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................          74,404       75,571          75,641           44           1,211
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   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, 
2008:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2008                    Change from
                                            FY 2007    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee
                                            (floor)       Request    recommendation    FY 2008        FY 2007
                                                                         (floor)       request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................          27,615       26,502          26,502            0           -1113
Army Reserve..........................           7,912        8,249           8,249            0             337
Air National Guard....................          23,255       22,553          22,553            0             702
Air Force Reserve.....................          10,124        9,909           9,909            0            -215
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................          68,906       67,213          67,213            0            -289
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 414--Fiscal Year 2008 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, 2008:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2008                    Change from
                                            FY 2007    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2008        FY 2007
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................           1,600        1,600           1,600            0               0
Army Reserve..........................             595          595             595            0               0
Air National Guard....................             350          350             350            0               0
Air Force Reserve.....................              90           90              90            0               0
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................           2,635        2,635           2,635            0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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 2008 to provide 
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count 
against the end strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  FY 2008                    Change from
                                            FY 2007    ---------------------------------------------------------
                Service                   authorized                    Committee      FY 2008        FY 2007
                                                          Request    recommendation    request      authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...................          17,000       17,000          17,000            0               0
Army Reserve..........................          13,000       13,000          13,000            0               0
Naval Reserve.........................           6,200        6,200           6,200            0               0
Marine Corps Reserve..................           3,000        3,000           3,000            0               0
Air National Guard....................          16,000       16,000          16,000            0               0
Air Force Reserve.....................          14,000       14,000          14,000            0               0
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.........................          69,200       69,200          69,200            0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 416--Future Authorizations and Accounting for Certain Reserve 
   Component Personnel Authorized to be on Active Duty or Full-Time 
           National Guard Duty to Provide Operational Support

    This section would require that by March 1, 2008, the 
Secretary of Defense conduct a review of the long term 
operational support missions being performed by reserve 
component personnel under section 115(b) of title 10, United 
States Code, and submit the results of that review to Congress. 
Section 115(b) authorizes reserve component personnel to be on 
active duty, or full-time national guard duty, for more than 
three consecutive years, or for more than three years 
cumulatively out of four. The intent of the review is to 
determine whether missions that require such long-term 
personnel commitments should continue to be manned under the 
authorizations of section 115(b), or under other manning 
authorizations. This section would also require that future 
budget justifications materials provided to Congress illuminate 
the use of the reserve components under section 115(b).

Section 417--Revision of Variances Authorized for Selected Reserve End 
                               Strengths

    This section would increase the flexibility of the 
Secretary of Defense to vary the end strength of any component 
of the Selected Reserve by up to three percent above or below 
the authorized end strength for the component. The current 
variance authorized by title 10, United States Code, is two 
percent.

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations


                    Section 421--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize $115,416,839,000 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)
H401 Navy: Restore Navy medical personnel cut of 498....          45,800
H401 Navy: Restore military to civilian conversion......          45,450
H401 Air Force: Restore military to civilian conversion.          67,707
H401 Army: Restore military to civilian conversion......          33,100
H401 Air Force: Add 88 military personnel for B-52 
    bomber..............................................           5,300
H634 Shipment of second privately owned vehicle to non-
    foreign overseas locations..........................          22,000
H624 Army: Increase monthly rate of Hardship Duty Pay...          79,000
H516 National Guard Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.          73,000
Army National Guard: personnel 36 for WMD-CST teams in 
    New York and Florida................................           3,800
Air National Guard: personnel 8 for WMD-CST teams in New 
    York and Florida....................................             800
Title XIV: Wounded Warrior Assistance Act...............          66,000
Unexpended military personnel obligations...............        -987,230
Navy under-execution of FY07 end strength...............         -32,000
Navy Reserve under-execution of FY07 end strength.......          -7,000
Leg. Proposal not adopted: Enhanced Authority for 
    Reserve General & Flag Officers to Serve on Active 
    Duty................................................            -480
Leg. Proposal not adopted: Flexible Management of 
    Deployment of Members...............................        -102,000

               Section 422--Armed Forces Retirement Home

    This section would authorize $61.6 million to be 
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home during fiscal year 2008.

   Section 423--Offsetting Transfers from National Defense Stockpile 
                            Transaction Fund

    This section would transfer $150.0 million from unobligated 
balances of the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to 
the Miscellaneous Receipts of the United States Treasury to pay 
for direct spending costs arising from section 702 in this Act.

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee remains concerned that support for our troops 
and their families continues to remain a priority, particularly 
as we enter another year of highly demanding military 
operations in the Middle East. Many soldiers are facing their 
third deployment, and Marines have seen four or even five 
deployments over the past several years. The committee is 
concerned about the toll these continued deployments have on 
our armed forces and their families.
    As part of the Army's effort to grow the force, the 
committee proposed to increase the annual limit on the number 
of Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarships that may be 
awarded to cadets who serve in the reserve components. The 
committee is aware that the Department had proposed a provision 
that would eliminate the annual limit. However, the proposal 
generated significant mandatory spending that the committee 
could not overcome to accommodate the request. As a result, the 
committee proposes a modest increase in the annual limit to 
help the Army reserve components to grow their officer force to 
meet the increased demand being placed on the reserve 
components.
    The committee remains committed to ensuring that the 
personnel policy guidelines established in law remain current, 
valid, and effective. Accordingly, the committee includes a 
series of provisions that would improve the process for 
appointing and accessing officers, clarify mandatory separation 
and movement policies for senior officers, and facilitate the 
transition of officers to enlisted status.
    The committee also proposes to consolidate the educational 
assistance programs for service members. The committee 
recommends that the oversight and administration of the 
educational assistance program for reserve members be 
transferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 
Currently, the committee maintains authority for the reserve 
educational assistance program, while the House Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs maintains authority for the active duty 
educational assistance program. This has lead to disparate 
treatment in educational benefits between the active and 
reserve forces. This difference has become a notable point of 
contention as the reserve components have moved from a reserve 
strategic force to an operational reserve force. Combining the 
oversight and responsibility of the active and reserve 
educational programs under one committee of jurisdiction will 
help to ensure fair and equitable treatment for both the active 
and reserve forces.
    The committee continues to make recommendations to improve 
the quality of life for service members and their families and 
to recognize the sacrifices these individuals are making in 
support of worldwide operations. The committee recommends 
supplemental funding, including $50.0 million, for local 
educational agencies that are heavily impacted by the 
attendance of military dependents, and an additional $15.0 
million for local educational agencies that experience 
significant increases or decreases in the average daily 
attendance of military dependent students due to military force 
structure changes.
    Americans continue to show their support and compassion for 
our troops. Each day, donations for those serving in combat and 
those who have been wounded or injured in service to our nation 
continue to pour in from across the country--school children, 
community organizations, religious organizations, to 
individuals who just want to do something to ``support the 
troops.'' The outpouring of support has been phenomenal and the 
committee seeks to encourage these efforts by extending the 
authority for the Secretary of Defense to accept gifts, 
devices, and bequests that benefit members of the armed forces 
and helps to improve the quality of life for themselves and 
their families.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                Access to Member Social Security Numbers

    The committee continues to be concerned that commanders and 
other managers within the Department of Defense are not doing 
enough to protect the social security numbers of service 
members. The committee is aware of anecdotal accounts of 
careless handling of documents with social security numbers, 
including the posting of rosters on public bulletin boards. 
Such examples of inappropriate handling of personal data 
suggest that procedures for controlling documents with member 
social security numbers are not standardized and are not widely 
disseminated. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to review the policies regarding the safeguarding of 
social security numbers and other personal data within the 
Department of Defense and develop a more specific standardized 
policy accompanied by an aggressive Department-wide education 
program.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report, by October 1, 2007, 
on his findings and recommendations for implementing a 
standardized policy for safeguarding personal information.

Cost and Impact of Allowing Service Members to Utilize Their GI Bill to 
                          Repay Student Loans

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the impact of allowing those service members who qualify to 
receive GI Bill benefits to use their education benefit to 
repay student loans for education that would otherwise have 
qualified under the GI Bill education benefits program. The 
Secretary should include in the review student loans for which 
service members owe a debt on past education for which they 
have received even if the education was obtained prior to the 
service member entering the military and becoming eligible for 
the GI Bill.
    The purpose of the review is to identify:
          (1) The number of service members who will be 
        eligible to receive this benefit;
          (2) The overall impact of allowing service members to 
        receive this benefit, to include exhausting their 
        benefits when repaying these student loans;
          (3) The estimated cost of allowing service members to 
        receive this benefit; and
          (4) The impact of extending the program only to 
        include those service members who are recipients of the 
        Purple Heart and/or those service members that have 
        been injured and not returned to duty and the number of 
        service members that would qualify if this program were 
        limited to those two groups.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services a report on the results of this 
review no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act.

             Deployment Impact on Military Minor Dependents

    The committee is concerned that the high deployment tempo 
of service members is having a detrimental impact on their 
children. A recent study found that the rate of child abuse 
among military families, including the reserve component, may 
increase due to deployments of service members. While there is 
deep concern regarding the pressures that military families 
face during deployments, there is a lack of information on how 
such deployments may contribute to child maltreatment. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study, 
in consultation with the Center for Disease Control and 
Prevention, of the level of risks of child abuse and neglect 
among military minor dependents that may result due to the 
increased operational tempo of service members. The committee 
is concerned that the service members of our nation's ground 
forces in particular may be at highest risk and, therefore, 
urges the Secretary to focus the review on the impact of 
deployments on the Army and the Marine Corps. The committee 
directs the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report by December 31, 2008, on the findings of 
the study of the potential impact of deployment on child abuse 
rates among military families and his assessment and 
recommendations to address any such potential impact.

 Display of the National League of Families POW/MIA Flag at Department 
                         of Defense Facilities

    The committee notes that section 902 of title 36, United 
States Code, requires the Department of Defense to display the 
National League of Families Prisoner of War/Missing in Action 
(POW/MIA) flag on six occasions annually. The committee further 
notes that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs voluntarily 
displays the POW/MIA flag at the Department of Veterans 
Affairs' headquarters any day on which the flag of the United 
States is displayed, and, as required by law, displays the POW/
MIA flag at all medical centers of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs any day on which the flag of the United States is 
displayed. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
consider displaying the POW/MIA flag at the Department of 
Defense's headquarters and on military installations on any day 
on which the flag of the United States is displayed.

 Increased Funding for Prisoner of War and Missing Personnel Operations

    As required by the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
the Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2008 provided 
the committee with a five-year overview of the funding required 
and the funding requested for the Department's Prisoner of War 
and Missing Personnel affairs programs. In fiscal year 2008, 
the budget request would support 91 percent, or $8.0 million 
less than, the total funding required. The Department explained 
the gap as being wholly attributable to the lack of access to 
North Korea for investigations. Notwithstanding the current 
lack of access to North Korea, the committee believes that much 
work remains to be done and can be done in fiscal year 2008 to 
account for America's prisoner of war and missing personnel 
from all wars. Therefore, the committee recommends fully 
supporting those efforts by increasing the amounts requested as 
follows: $0.2 million for the Defense POW/MIA Personnel Office, 
$7.5 million for the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, and $0.3 
million Air Force Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory.

                 Increased Military Operations on Guam

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense intends 
to add permanent force structure to the military forces located 
on Guam and that the Department of Defense and the military 
departments have been assigning increasing numbers of military 
members and civilian employees to duty on Guam on a temporary 
basis. The committee recognizes that the permanent increase in 
force structure and the continuing presence of a significant 
number of temporary duty personnel are conditions that require 
the close coordination of the Department of Defense and the 
Government of Guam to address the requirements of increased 
military operations on Guam. Accordingly, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to review the proposed force structure 
increases, provide an assessment of the current status of 
planning efforts to prepare for increased military operations 
on Guam, and to compile, by military service, data regarding 
the number of military members who were permanently and 
temporarily assigned to Guam during each of the fiscal years 
2003 through fiscal year 2007.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report, by November 30, 
2007, on the findings of the review of the proposed force 
structure increases, his assessment of the planning efforts, 
and the data compiled on permanent and temporary assignments of 
military members to Guam.

                 National Guard Educational Initiatives

    The committee is concerned at the numbers of non-prior 
service personnel enlisting in the National Guard who do not 
have a high school diploma. The committee understands that the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau has begun efforts to assist 
National Guard recruits who have enlisted without either a high 
school degree or general equivalency diploma (GED) to obtain a 
GED. The committee urges the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
to consider employing advanced computer assisted instruction 
and learning management systems, to assist such National Guard 
recruits to obtain a GED.

    Pay and Retirement Service Credit for Students at the Uniformed 
  Services University of Health Sciences and Other Education Programs

    The committee is concerned that students at government-
funded education programs are receiving disparate treatment 
with regard to the credit they receive for prior military 
service while enrolled in the education programs. The committee 
believes that a thorough review of the personnel status of 
students in government-funded education programs should be 
conducted to ensure that students are receiving fair and 
equitable treatment and that each program is postured to 
attract sufficient numbers of qualified candidates. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 
personnel status of students, the pay, treatment, and service 
credit of prior service members, the grade and promotion status 
of all students, the credit for service while attending school 
in terms of pay, promotion, and retirement, and other factors 
as determined by the Secretary with regard to the following 
programs:
          (1) Armed Forces Health Professions Financial 
        Assistance Programs;
          (2) The Uniformed Services University of Health 
        Sciences;
          (3) The program to detail commissioned officers as 
        students at medical schools as authorized in section 
        536 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
        Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364);
          (4) Programs that provide for medical school 
        attendance by service academy graduates;
          (5) Programs for members to attain advanced degrees;
          (6) Programs for members to attend law school;
          (7) Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps Programs;
          (8) Service academies; and
          (9) Other educational programs as determined by the 
        Secretary.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services a report, by March 31, 2008, on his findings and 
recommendations regarding the need to legislate changes to 
personnel policy to ensure fair and equitable treatment of 
students in government funded education programs and encourage 
the participation of qualified candidates in those programs.

    Review of Privileged or Protected Communications Made by Victims

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, this 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review 
to determine when, and to what extent, pretrial investigations 
under article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice should 
be closed to spectators, the media, and others in order to 
protect witnesses and victims of sexual assault or domestic 
violence. The Secretary of Defense was also directed to conduct 
a review of privileged or protected communications made by 
victims of sexual assaults to health care providers and victim 
advocates. The purpose of the review was to identify whether 
changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial should be made to 
extend the privileges that are already included within Section 
V of the Military Rules of Evidence to include health care 
providers and victim advocates. The Secretary of Defense was 
directed to present to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services a report detailing 
the results of the reviews conducted in these areas no later 
than April 15, 2007. However, that date has passed and the 
committee has yet to receive these reports. The committee urges 
the Secretary of Defense to submit these reports in a timely 
fashion so that Congress can continue its proper oversight and 
ensure that these issues are addressed in a timely manner.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy


    Section 501--Assignment of Officers to Designated Positions of 
                     Importance and Responsibility

    This section would authorize officers serving in the grades 
of lieutenant general or vice admiral and general or admiral to 
continue for up to 60 days to hold those grades following 
reassignment from positions authorized for those grades, unless 
sooner placed under orders to another position authorized for 
those grades.

 Section 502--Increase in Years of Commissioned Service Threshold for 
  Discharge of Probationary Officers and for the Use of Force Shaping 
                               Authority

    This section would amend section 630 of title 10, United 
States Code, to extend the probationary period of active duty 
and reserve officers to six years of commissioned service from 
less than five years of commissioned service. Extending the 
probationary period would allow for involuntary separation 
prior to six years of commissioned service, rather than forcing 
the services to retain officers until they twice fail to be 
selected for promotion to lieutenant commander or major.

   Section 503--Special Promotion Authority for Navy Career Military 
                               Professors

    This section would amend section 641 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize permanent military professors or 
career military professors to be appointed to the higher grade 
of captain, provided that the individual completes six years of 
service as a permanent military professor or career military 
professor. Such appointments would be subject to the 
President's approval with the advice and consent of the U.S. 
Senate.

                 Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters


 Section 511--Mandatory Separation of Reserve Officers in the Grade of 
  Lieutenant General or Vice Admiral after Completion of 38 Years of 
                          Commissioned Service

    This section would mandate that reserve component officers 
serving in the grades of lieutenant general or vice admiral be 
separated from active status upon reaching 38 years of 
commissioned service. This section would establish a mandatory 
separation policy that is consistent with the separation of 
active duty officers in the same grades for years of service.

 Section 512--Constructive Service Credit upon Original Appointment of 
          Reserve Officers in Certain Health Care Professions

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
grant officer candidates qualified in health care professions 
that are critically manned within the reserve components with 
sufficient constructive service credit to be appointed a 
reserve officer in the grade of captain, or in the Navy 
Reserve, lieutenant.

Section 513--Maximum Period of Temporary Federal Recognition of Person 
      as Army National Guard Officer or Air Force Reserve Officer

    This section would extend the period that members of the 
national guard may be granted temporary federal recognition 
from six months to one year.

Section 514--Military Technicians (Dual Status) in the Selected Reserve

    This section would enable military technicians (dual 
status), all of whom must maintain membership in the Selected 
Reserve as a condition of employment, to continue to be 
employed as technicians when the loss of that membership is the 
result of a combat-related disability. This section also would 
provide the secretaries of the Army and the Air Force temporary 
authority to fill a military technician (dual status) position 
that is vacant due to the mobilization of the incumbent with a 
person who is not a dual status technician. This section also 
would provide authority to defer mandatory separation of a 
military technician (dual status) until that person attains 
eligibility for an unreduced annuity, but not beyond age 62.

   Section 515--Working Group on Reintegration of Reserve Component 
                   Members Returning from Deployment

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a working group to identify and assess the 
reintegration needs of members of the reserve components 
returning from overseas operational deployment, to include the 
timing and sequencing of reintegration outreach. The committee 
notes that there are many programs currently being operated by 
different services, states, and commands to help returning 
members of the reserve components make the transition back to 
civilian life, such as programs in Minnesota, New Hampshire, 
Oregon, and Washington. The working group will be able to 
catalog and analyze existing programs, identify best practices, 
and develop plans to incorporate the best practices across the 
services.

    Section 516--National Guard Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to 
establish a national combat veteran reintegration program, to 
be known as the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. The 
committee understands that the reserve component has changed 
from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve, fully 
engaged in the global war on terror, and that reserve component 
members face challenges that are inherently different from 
their counterparts in the active component. Readjusting to 
civilian life can be extremely challenging for members of the 
reserve components returning to their families, hometowns, and 
civilian employment. The active component has recognized the 
need for programs that address issues for service members 
returning from combat and has already instituted such programs. 
However, members of the reserve components return to their 
hometowns following demobilization and often do not have access 
to services and resources that allow them to successfully 
reintegrate back into society.
    This section would require the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau to establish an Office for Reintegration Programs to 
administer all reintegration programs in coordination with 
state national guard organizations. The committee recommends 
the office be appropriately staffed with full-time National 
Guard Bureau personnel, military or civilian, for this purpose. 
Further, the committee recommends that the Office for 
Reintegration Programs employ full-time personnel to staff the 
state Deployment Cycle Support Teams to administer the Yellow 
Ribbon Reintegration Program at the state level.
    The committee recommends that the Yellow Ribbon 
Reintegration Program include specific reintegration events and 
activities to take place during four phases of deployment; Pre-
Deployment Phase, Deployment Phase, Demobilization Phase, and 
Post-Deployment-Reconstitution Phase. Activities and programs 
should focus on service members and their families but should 
also include community information sessions to educate 
community leaders, religious leaders, schools, employers, 
mental health professionals, and family readiness groups about 
the challenges of reintegration, and what they can do to assist 
combat veterans and their families successfully reintegrate 
back into the community.

    Section 517--Advance Notice to Members of Reserve Components of 
            Deployment in Support of Contingency Operations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure that a member of a reserve component, who will be called 
or ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days in 
support of a contingency operation, will be given a minimum of 
30 days notice before the mobilization date with a goal of 
providing 90 days notice before mobilization. The Secretary may 
waive these requirements or authorize shorter notice during a 
war or national emergency declared by the President or Congress 
or to meet mission requirements. If the waiver or reduction is 
made on account of mission requirements, this section would 
require the Secretary to provide Congress a report detailing 
the reasons for the waiver or reduction and the mission 
requirements at issue.

                   Subtitle C--Education and Training


Section 521--Reduction or Elimination of Service Obligation in an Army 
 Reserve or Army National Guard Troop Program Unit for Certain Persons 
 Selected as Medical Students at Uniformed Services University of the 
                            Health Sciences

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
modify agreements entered into by cadets in the Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps who participate in the Guaranteed 
Reserve Forces Duty Scholarship Program to allow the member to 
meet previously-agreed commitments to serve in the reserve 
components by fulfilling active duty service commitments 
incurred by the member as a physician following graduation from 
the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences.

 Section 522--Increase in Annual Limit on Number of ROTC Scholarships 
           under Army Reserve and Army National Guard Program

    This section would increase the limitation on the number of 
Reserve Officers Training Corps scholarships that may be 
awarded each year from 416 to 424 to cadets who wish to serve 
in the reserve components of the Army.

    Section 523--Revisions to Authority to Pay Tuition for Off-Duty 
                         Training or Education

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to pay tuition assistance to certain 
members of the Ready Reserve who serve in critical occupational 
specialties and who agree to a specified period of additional 
service in the ready reserve. The critical occupational 
specialties would be determined by the secretaries of the 
military departments.

   Section 524--National Defense University Master's Degree Programs

    This section would authorize the National Defense 
University to award a Master of Arts degree in Strategic 
Security Studies to program graduates at the School for 
National Security Executive Education. As required by law, the 
Secretary of Education has formally approved the Master of Arts 
degree in Strategic Security Studies at the National Defense 
University.

Section 525--Recodification in Title 38, United States Code, of Certain 
 Educational Assistance Programs for Members of the Reserve Components

    This section would recodify sections 1606 and 1607 of title 
10, United States Code, to title 38. As of October 1, 2008, 
payments for educational assistance, under this section, would 
be made from funds appropriated or otherwise made available to 
the Department of Veterans Affairs for the payment of 
readjustment benefits. However, individuals designated by the 
secretary of the military department concerned, who are given 
an increased rate of educational benefits due to a skill or 
specialty in which there is a critical shortage, commonly 
referred to as a ``kicker,'' would be funded from amounts in 
the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund, but only for 
that specified amount of increased benefit. This section would 
require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs to enter into an agreement to transfer the funds from 
the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to pay for those section 1606 
and 1607 benefits which the Department of Veterans Affairs will 
now be responsible for paying. The funds transferred to the 
Readjustment Benefits Account of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs would only be used to pay those section 1606 and 1607 
benefits which were earned prior to October 1, 2008. This 
transfer of funds would be made as quickly as possible to 
ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs will have the 
funds necessary to pay these section 1606 and 1607 benefits.

  Section 526--Secretary of Defense Evaluation of the Adequacy of the 
   Degree-Granting Authorities of Certain Military Universities and 
                        Educational Institutions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
evaluate the degree-granting authorities of certain military 
universities and educational institutions to assess whether the 
current process remains adequate, appropriate, and responsive 
to meet emerging military service education requirements.

  Section 527--Navy Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Unit for 
            Southold, Mattituck, and Greenport High Schools

    This section would allow the Southold, Mattituck, and 
Greenport High Schools, located within the town of Southold in 
Suffolk County, New York, to be treated as a single institution 
for the purposes of maintaining a Navy Junior Reserve Officers' 
Training Corps unit.

                Subtitle D--General Service Authorities


   Section 531--Authority to Reduce Required Service Obligation for 
 Initial Appointment of Qualified Health Professionals as Officers in 
                          Critical Specialties

    This section would provide a waiver to the mandatory 
service obligation for a select group of experienced physicians 
who are willing to serve their country in uniform for at least 
two years. The committee recognizes that the Department of 
Defense faces significant challenges recruiting qualified 
health professionals, particularly those with critical 
specialties such as surgeons, orthopedists, dentists, and nurse 
anesthetists. The committee notes that the Department has 
stated that it does not intend to reduce the mandatory service 
obligation for most physician accessions.

Section 532--Reenlistment in Former Enlisted Grade after Service as an 
                                Officer

    This section would authorize regular officers to reenlist 
in their former enlisted grade when separation as an officer is 
under honorable conditions and the officer is otherwise 
qualified for enlistment.

       Subtitle E--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters


 Section 541--Authority to Designate Certain Civilian Employees of the 
Federal Government as Eligible for Legal Assistance from Department of 
                     Defense Legal Staff Resources

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to prescribe regulations authorizing legal 
assistance to designated civilian employees of the federal 
government serving with, or preparing to serve with, an armed 
service in support of a contingency operation.

                   Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards


 Section 551--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal of Honor to 
     Leslie H. Sabo, Jr., for Acts of Valor During the Vietnam War

    This section would authorize the President to award the 
Medal of Honor to Leslie H. Sabo, Jr., who served in the U.S. 
Army during the Vietnam War. This section would also waive the 
statutory time limitation under section 3744 of title 10, 
United States Code.

 Section 552--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal of Honor to 
          Henry Svehla for Acts of Valor During the Korean War

    This section would authorize the President to award the 
Medal of Honor to Henry Svehla, who served in the U.S. Army 
during the Korean War. This section would also waive the 
statutory time limitation under section 3744 of title 10, 
United States Code.

 Section 553--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal of Honor to 
       Woodrow W. Keeble for Acts of Valor During the Korean War

    This section would authorize the President to award the 
Medal of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble, who served in the U.S. 
Army during the Korean War. This section would also waive the 
statutory time limitation under section 3744 of title 10, 
United States Code.

 Section 554--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal of Honor to 
   Private Philip G. Shadrach for Acts of Valor During the Civil War

    This section would authorize the President to award the 
Medal of Honor to Private Philip G. Shadrach, who served in the 
U.S. Army during the Civil War. This section would also waive 
the statutory time limitation under section 3744 of title 10, 
United States Code.

 Section 555--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal of Honor to 
    Private George D. Wilson for Acts of Valor During the Civil War

    This section would authorize the President to award the 
Medal of Honor to Private George D. Wilson, who served in the 
U.S. Army during the Civil War. This section would also waive 
the statutory time limitation under section 3744 of title 10, 
United States Code.

                  Section 556--Cold War Victory Medal

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
design and issue a Cold War Victory Medal to a person, upon 
application by a service member 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.

     Subtitle G--Impact Aid and Defense Dependents Education System


  Section 561--Tuition Assistance for Military Dependents in Overseas 
 Areas Where Schools Operated by Defense Dependents' Education System 
                      Are Not Reasonably Available

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to pay 
tuition for dependents in overseas areas where there are no 
Department of Defense schools or an adequate alternative, to 
attend private boarding schools in the United States, under 
regulations established by the Secretary.

  Section 562--Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational 
  Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and 
                Department of Defense Civilian Employees

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

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters


   Section 571--Extension of Authority To Accept Gifts, Devises, or 
   Bequests to Benefit Members of the Armed Forces, Dependents, and 
            Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense

    This section would extend the authority for the Secretary 
of Defense to accept gifts for the benefit of members from 
December 31, 2007, to December 31, 2010.

Section 572--Uniform Performance Policies for Military Bands and Other 
                             Musical Units

    This section would allow members of military bands or 
similar musical units to perform music in their personal 
capacities, with or without compensation, but when doing so, 
would require that such members act exclusively outside of 
their official positions. Members may neither wear their 
military uniforms nor use their official titles or positions 
and must comply with all applicable ethics rules. This section 
would authorize any military band or similar musical unit to 
produce and distribute recordings to the public at a cost that 
covers only production and distribution expenses. This section 
would also require that the funds used for recording expenses 
be reimbursed to the original funding source.

Section 573--Repeal of Limitation on Number of Academies of Department 
             of Defense STARBASE Program in a Single State

    This section would amend section 2193b(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, to repeal the limitation on the number of 
Starbase academies allowed per state.

 Section 574--Combat Veterans Mentoring Program for Current Members of 
                            the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a program that provides combat veterans the 
opportunity to meet and mentor current members of the Armed 
Forces. The Secretary is required to provide opportunities for 
combat veterans to meet with current members before, after, and 
during deployments.

 Section 575--Recognition of Members of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and 
Archives Program of the Civil Affairs and Military Government Sections 
         of the Armed Forces During and Following World War II

    This section would recognize the men and women who served 
in the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program under the 
Civil Affairs and Military Government Sections of the United 
States Armed Forces for their role in the preservation, 
protection, and restitution of monuments, works of art, and 
other artifacts of cultural importance in Europe and Asia 
during and following World War II.

Section 576--Program To Commemorate 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a program to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 
Vietnam War and to coordinate, support, and facilitate the 
Vietnam War commemorative programs and activities of the 
federal government, state and local governments, and other 
persons and organizations that support the commemorative 
objectives specified in the section. This section would also 
authorize the program to continue through 2025, with the 
Secretary determining the schedule of events and priority of 
efforts during the duration of the program.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to believe that successful 
recruiting and retention in a wartime environment directly 
depends on the close oversight of compensation and benefit 
programs to ensure that they remain robust, flexible, and 
effective. Accordingly, the committee recommends an across-the-
board pay raise of 3.5 percent, one-half of one percent above 
pay raise levels in the private sector as measured by the 
Employment Cost Index (ECI). This would be the 9th consecutive 
year that the pay raise would exceed the ECI level and would 
result in an average cumulative pay increase of 46 percent over 
the last 9 years.
    The committee also recognizes that some previously adopted 
compensation policies, bonuses, and special pays require 
modification to ensure they remain current and effective and 
the committee recommends a number of such adjustments. The 
committee also supports the proposal of the Department of 
Defense's Tenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation to 
consolidate and simplify the system of special and incentive 
pays. The committee recommends reform of those pays to make 
them more understandable and easier to administer.
    The committee believes that more needs to be done to 
protect the annuities of surviving military spouses and 
increase retirement compensation for service members who have 
been retired with disabilities. The committee recommends a 
monthly survivor indemnity allowance of up to $40 to partially 
offset the reduction in the Survivor Benefit Program annuities 
resulting from concurrent eligibility for Dependency and 
Indemnity Compensation paid by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Additionally, the committee recommends that retired 
service members with combat related disabilities be paid an 
annuity under the combat related special compensation program 
so long as they have at least 15 years of service.
    The committee remains committed to protecting and enhancing 
military exchange, commissary, and morale, welfare, and 
recreation programs. Accordingly, the committee has included 
direction to examine methods for making military resale stores 
and morale, welfare, and recreation activities more efficient 
and effective programs.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


       Base Access for Vendors Serving Military Resale Activities

    The committee is disappointed that base access procedures 
for employees of vendors servicing military resale activities 
remain cumbersome and costly. The committee believes that 
establishing a standardized identification card that would 
facilitate base access on a regional basis can improve these 
procedures. Specifically, the committee believes that the 
common access card (CAC) currently employed by the Department 
of Defense as a universal identification card could be used to 
afford vendors a simple and cost effective method for their 
employees to gain access to installations. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 
procedures for authorizing CACs to determine if vendor 
employees could be accommodated within the current system and 
develop recommendations for implementing such an accommodation.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services a report, by March 31, 2008, on his findings and 
recommendations.

                 Combined Commissary and Exchange Store

    The committee understands that there is a continuing effort 
to develop a new model for combining commissary and exchange 
operations into one facility. The committee believes that the 
development of a combined store model acceptable to both 
commissary and exchange managers is an urgent matter requiring 
immediate attention. The refined combined store model is needed 
to assist the Department of Defense and Congress in determining 
the residual structure for military resale services at base 
closure sites. The combined model may also present a new, more 
efficient and effective option for military resale operations 
in the future. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to review the current status of negotiations for a 
new, combined store model and develop recommendations for 
implementing a new, combined store model.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services a report, by March 31, 2008, on his findings and 
recommendations.

Military Resale and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities at Joint 
                                 Bases

    The committee is concerned that the process for determining 
which military resale and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) 
activities will be retained at newly formed joint bases is not 
fully developed and will yield inconsistent and unfair results. 
The committee believes that there are potential risks to 
exchange profits and MWR employee job security that have not 
been addressed. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to review both the process that will be used to 
determine the residual structure for military resale and MWR 
activities at joint bases and the nonappropriated fund 
personnel management policies that will be employed in the 
process and confirm the process is effective and fair.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services a report, by March 31, 2008, on his findings.

Payment of Imminent Danger Pay to Members Who Serve in Combat Zones for 
                             Short Periods

    The committee is concerned that members are traveling for 
short periods to the combat zones associated with Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Operations Iraqi Freedom and qualifying 
for imminent danger pay for the entire month. The committee 
believes that this practice should be curtailed and the 
entitlement to imminent danger pay be restructured to provide 
for payment on a day-by-day basis or after a minimum period of 
service at an authorized location. Accordingly, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to review current imminent 
danger pay policies and recommend legislation for the payment 
of imminent danger pay that would be proportionate to time 
served at authorized locations.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services a report, by March 31, 2008, the Department of 
Defense's findings and recommendations.

Treatment of Retired Pay for General and Flag Officers Who Subsequently 
       Return to Service on Active Duty in the Reserve Component

    The committee has become aware that there may be a number 
of general and flag officers, as well as other officer and 
enlisted personnel, who retire from active duty service or are 
in a retired reserve status and subsequently return to an 
active status in a reserve component. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-398, 
amended title 10, United States Code, to add section 12741, 
which authorizes such members to elect a reserve retirement 
upon reaching age 60. This provision allows a member to have 
his or her retired pay recalculated to include the additional 
reserve service performed and, if the member was subsequently 
promoted, to retire in the higher grade. However, there are 
concerns that such members should be allowed to be transferred 
back to the retired status at the highest grade held and that 
such additional service be immediately included in a 
recomputation of their retired pay upon their return to 
retirement status. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a study on the treatment of general and flag 
officers, and other service members who are similarly affected, 
who return from retirement to serve their country.
    The report should include at a minimum:
          (1) The number of individuals who return from 
        retirement to continue their service in an active 
        status in a reserve component;
          (2) Whether a member transferred to an active status 
        should be allowed to have their retired pay recomputed 
        upon their return to a retired status with such 
        computation based on the highest grade held;
          (3) The potential cost for a proposed change;
          (4) Other policy implications that may result from 
        the change in the treatment of such individuals; and
          (5) The implications for other members who return 
        from retired status to serve on active duty.
    The Secretary of Defense shall submit the results of his 
review to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 
2008.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances


      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2008 Increase in Military Basic Pay

    This section would increase basic pay for members of the 
uniform services by 3.5 percent effective January 1, 2008. This 
raise would continue to fulfill Congress's commitment to 
keeping pay raises for the uniformed services ahead of private 
sector pay raises. Accordingly, the gap between pay increases 
for the uniformed services and private sector employees during 
fiscal year 2008 would be reduced from 3.9 percent to 
approximately 3.4 percent. This section would also provide that 
additional costs incurred by authorizing a pay raise that is 
one-half of one percent above the raise included in the budget 
request will be addressed in the authorization of 
appropriations that would be provided in title XV of this Act.

Section 602--Basic Allowance for Housing for Reserve Component Members 
 Without Dependents Who Attend Accession Training While Maintaining a 
                           Primary Residence

    This section would authorize single reserve component 
members without dependents to receive basic allowance for 
housing while attending initial training following accession, 
so long as the member maintains a permanent residence.

Section 603--Income Replacement Payments for Reserve Component Members 
Experiencing Extended and Frequent Mobilization for Active Duty Service

    This section would clarify the eligibility criteria for 
income replacement payments to reservists experiencing extended 
or frequent mobilization for active duty service including 
payments to members who are retained on active duty for 
authorized medical care or for medical evaluation for 
disability. This section would also clarify the cumulative 
periods of qualifying service by calculating those periods 
using days in lieu of months.

  Section 604--Participation of Members of the Uniformed Services in 
                          Thrift Savings Plan

    This section would authorize pay authorities to make mid-
month contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan on behalf of 
members of the uniformed services.

Section 605--Enhancement of Referral Bonus To Encourage Service in the 
                                  Army

    This section would authorize an Army referral bonus to be 
paid to the member or employee who refers an officer candidate 
who is later appointed as an officer in a health profession 
designated by the Secretary of the Army.

Section 606--Guaranteed Pay Increase for Members of the Armed Forces of 
   One-Half of One Percentage Point Higher Than Employment Cost Index

    This section would mandate that pay raises for members of 
all components of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps 
during fiscal years 2009 through 2012 must be one-half of one 
percent higher than the raise calculated under section 1009 of 
title 37, United States Code, using the level of pay increases 
in the private sector as measured using the Employment Cost 
Index.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays


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

    This section would extend the authority for the Selected 
Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or 
enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members assigned to 
certain high priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus 
for persons without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment 
and reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, and the 
Selected Reserve enlistment bonus for persons with prior 
service until December 31, 2009.

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

    This section would extend the authority for the nurse 
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists, the special pay for Selected Reserve health care 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the 
accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 
pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in 
critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus 
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 
specialties until December 31, 2009. This section would also 
extend the authority for repayment of educational loans for 
certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve 
until January 1, 2010.

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, 2009.

  Section 614--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other 
                        Bonuses and Special Pays

    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 or assigned to high priority units, the 
accession bonus for new officers in critical skills, the 
incentive bonus for conversion to shortage military 
occupational specialties, the incentive bonus to transfer 
between armed forces, the accession bonus for officer 
candidates, and the Army referral bonus until December 31, 
2008, except for the incentive bonus to transfer between armed 
forces, which is extended until December 31, 2010.

Section 615--Increase in Incentive Special Pay and Multiyear Retention 
                       Bonus for Medical Officers

    This section would increase the maximum annual amounts that 
may be paid to medical officers for incentive special pay from 
$50,000 to $75,000 and the multiyear retention bonus from 
$50,000 to $75,000.

     Section 616--Increase in Dental Officer Additional Special Pay

    This section would increase the maximum annual amounts of 
additional special pay that may be paid to dental officers with 
less than three years of service from $4,000 to $10,000 and to 
dental officers with more than three years of service, but less 
than 10 years of service, from $6,000 to $12,000.

   Section 617--Definition of Sea Duty for Career Sea Pay to Include 
                            Multi-Crew Ships

    This section would clarify that members who are assigned to 
a crew for a multi-crewed class of vessels are entitled to 
continuous payment of career sea pay.

  Section 618--Reenlistment Bonus for Members of the Selected Reserve

    This section would clarify that reenlistment bonuses may be 
paid for a minimum period of three years of obligated service 
and that $15,000 is the maximum bonus that may be paid for any 
reenlistment.

   Section 619--Availability of Selected Reserve Accession Bonus for 
  Persons Who Previously Served in the Armed Forces for a Short Period

    This section would authorize payment of a Selected Reserve 
enlistment bonus to persons who had enlisted previously, but 
were unable to complete basic training requirements due to 
circumstances beyond their control and were separated under 
honorable conditions.

   Section 620--Availability of Nuclear Officer Continuation Pay for 
        Officers with More Than 26 Years of Commissioned Service

    This section would extend the eligibility for the nuclear 
officer continuation pay from 26 to 30 years of commissioned 
service.

   Section 621--Waiver of Years-of-Service Limitation on Receipt of 
                    Critical Skills Retention Bonus

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, or 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast 
Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, to 
waive the maximum years of service eligibility requirement for 
a critical skill retention bonus and pay bonuses to members 
with more than 25 years of service.

   Section 622--Accession Bonus for Participants in the Armed Forces 
    Health Professional Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program

    This section would authorize an accession bonus of not more 
than $20,000 to be paid to participants in the Armed Forces 
Health Professional Scholarship and Financial Assistance 
Program.

 Section 623--Payment of Assignment Incentive Pay for Reserve Members 
             Serving in Combat Zone for More than 22 Months

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to pay $1,000 each month in assignment 
incentive pay to reserve members serving in combat zones 
associated with Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 
Freedom once the member exceeds 22 cumulative months of service 
on active duty under either a voluntary mobilization authority, 
the presidential Selected Reserve callup authority, or the 
partial mobilization authority. The payments would be 
authorized during the period extending from January 1, 2005, 
through the end of the member's service in the combat zone when 
the member's most recent mobilization to active duty began 
prior to January 19, 2007. Service under the appropriate 
authorities would qualify the member for the pay if performed 
during the period extending from January 1, 2003, through the 
end of the member's active duty service during the member's 
most recent mobilization to active duty that began prior to 
January 19, 2007.
    The committee is aware that assignment incentive pay is 
being paid or has been paid to reserve component members who 
agreed to deploy with their units to Operation Iraqi Freedom or 
Operation Enduring Freedom notwithstanding that they would 
exceed the maximum of 24 months of mobilized service 
established in Department of Defense policy at the time. The 
committee is also aware that in the case of the Army, there are 
soldiers in the same units who would also exceed the 24 month 
maximum that were not offered the assignment incentive pay 
solely because the previous mobilization was under a different 
authority. The committee believes that all these soldiers made 
an important commitment to the nation that resulted in their 
units being more cohesive and combat ready because of their 
presence and that it is a fundamental injustice to reward one 
group and not the other.
    The committee directs the secretaries of the military 
departments to examine this issue and, if appropriate, 
disseminate information to the units where members have 
demonstrated their willingness to deploy to a combat zone 
during the eligibility period and serve beyond 24 months during 
the qualification period. The committee strongly encourages the 
secretaries of the military departments to seek applications 
from members who believe they would be eligible for the 
assignment incentive pay and are equally deserving of the pay 
as those members in their units who are receiving or have 
received the pay.

   Section 624--Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate of Hardship Duty Pay

    This section would increase the maximum amount of hardship 
duty pay that may be paid each month from $750 to $1,500.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


Section 631--Allowance for Participation in Reserve Screening Conducted 
                        through Electronic Means

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to 
provide a $50 stipend to reserve component members when the 
member participates in an electronic screening to verify 
contact information and determine individual readiness.

 Section 632--Allowance for Civilian Clothing for Members of the Armed 
         Forces Traveling in Connection with Medical Evacuation

    This section would authorize members to purchase luggage in 
addition to clothing at government expense when traveling in 
connection with medical evacuation.

 Section 633--Moving Expenses for JROTC Instructors Who Agree to Serve 
                       in Hard-to-Fill Positions

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to 
reimburse educational institutions for moving expenses paid to 
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps instructors when the 
secretary determines the position is hard-to-fill and the 
instructor agrees to serve in the position for two years.

 Section 634--Transportation of Additional Motor Vehicle of Members on 
  Change of Permanent Station to or From Nonforeign Areas Outside the 
                       Continental United States

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

Section 635--Payment of Inactive Duty Training Travel Costs for Certain 
                        Selected Reserve Members

    This section would authorize the secretary of a military 
service to reimburse members of the Selected Reserve serving in 
specialties designated by the Secretary for travel expenses 
when that travel while performing inactive duty training or 
unit training assembly duty is outside the commuting limits of 
the member's station and the training is necessary to maintain 
mission readiness. This section would also specify that the 
amount that may be reimbursed for such training may not exceed 
$300. This section would be effective October 1, 2008, and 
terminate December 31, 2014.

             Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits


     Section 641--Disregarding Periods of Confinement of Member in 
  Determining Benefits for Dependents Who are Victims of Abuse by the 
                                 Member

    This section would allow periods of confinement prior to 
convening authority action to be considered in determining 
certain benefits for dependents who are victims of abuse by the 
service member.

Section 642--Continuation of Authority for Members of the Armed Forces 
      to Designate a Recipient for a Portion of the Death Gratuity

    This section would extend the authority for members to 
designate a person to receive up to 50 percent of the death 
gratuity in 10 percent increments. The authority was 
established in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 
2007 with an expiration date of September 30, 2007.

Section 643--Recoupment of Annuity Amounts Previously Paid, but Subject 
          to Offset for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

    This section would specify a series of actions to protect 
the interests of surviving spouses who are subjected to 
recoupment of overpayments under the Survivor Benefit Plan 
resulting from the mandatory offsets associated with payments 
of Dependency Indemnity Compensation by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. These actions include:
          (1) A single notice of the net amount to be recouped;
          (2) A written explanation of the statutory 
        requirements for recoupment;
          (3) A detailed accounting of the calculations used to 
        determine the amount to be recouped; and
          (4) Contact information for a person who can provide 
        information and respond to questions regarding the 
        recoupment action.

Section 644--Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for Persons Affected 
  by Required Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for Dependency and 
                         Indemnity Compensation

    This section would authorize a survivor indemnity allowance 
to surviving spouses who are denied the full amount of their 
annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) because of the 
offset required as a result of concurrent receipt of Dependency 
and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. This section would authorize such surviving 
spouses to receive a monthly payment equal to $40 or the amount 
of the SBP annuity subject to the DIC offset should it be a 
lesser amount. The authority provided under this section would 
be effective on October 1, 2008, and would expire on March 1, 
2016.

     Section 645--Expansion of Combat-Related Special Compensation 
 Eligibility for Chapter 61 Military Retirees with Fewer than 20 Years 
                         of Creditable Service

    This section would authorize disabled military retirees 
with fewer than 20 years of service to receive payments under 
the combat-related special compensation program so long as they 
possess a minimum of 15 years of creditable service and the 
level of their disability is rated at least 60 percent 
disabling. This section would also require that the amount of 
military retired pay received by the member would be reduced by 
the amount that the member's disability retired pay exceeds the 
amount of retired pay due to the member based on years of 
service alone. The authority under this section would be 
effective on October 1, 2008, and would expire on October 1, 
2015.

    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                                Benefits


   Section 651--Access to Defense Commissary and Exchange System by 
      Surviving Spouse and Dependents of Certain Disabled Veterans

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
revise Department of Defense regulations to provide for access 
to military commissary and exchange stores for surviving 
spouses and dependents of veterans who were posthumously 
determined to possess service-connected disabilities rated as 
100 percent or total.

Section 652--Authority to Continue Commissary and Exchange Benefits for 
      Certain Involuntarily Separated Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would authorize members involuntarily 
separated from active duty or the Selected Reserve to continue 
to use commissary and exchange stores for two years after 
separation. This would expire on December 31, 2012.

   Section 653--Authorization of Installment Deductions from Pay of 
Employees of Executive Branch Instrumentalities to Collect Indebtedness 
                          to the United States

    This section would clarify that executive branch 
instrumentalities have the same access to procedures for 
collection of debts from federal civilian employees as do 
judicial and legislative branch instrumentalities.

  Subtitle F--Consolidation of Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus 
                              Authorities


  Section 661--Consolidation of Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus 
                 Authorities of the Uniformed Services

    This section would reform and consolidate over 60 special 
and incentive pays into the following eight categories:
          (1) Bonuses for enlisted members;
          (2) Bonuses for officers;
          (3) Bonuses and incentive pays for nuclear officers;
          (4) Bonuses and incentive pays for aviation officers;
          (5) Bonuses and incentive pays for officers in health 
        professions;
          (6) Hazardous duty pays;
          (7) Assignment pays and special duty pays; and
          (8) Skill incentive pays and proficiency bonuses.
    This section would also retain separate authorities for 15-
year career status bonuses, critical skill retention bonuses, 
and the continuation of combat zone related pays and allowances 
for members hospitalized as a result combat-related wounds, 
injuries, or illnesses. The committee believes that reform and 
consolidation of special and incentive pays will result in a 
pay system that is easier to understand and less expensive to 
administer.

                  Section 662--Transitional Provisions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the 
Secretary of Commerce, a plan to implement the consolidation of 
special pays, incentive pays, and bonus authorities specified 
in section 661 of this Act and to submit the plan to the 
congressional defense committees within one year of the date of 
enactment of this Act. This section would also provide for an 
orderly transfer to the new authorities that would be 
implemented on a pace set by the Secretary of Defense with full 
implementation required within 10 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


Section 671--Expansion of Education Loan Repayment Program for Members 
                        of the Selected Reserve

    This section would expand the types of educational loans 
that may be repaid under the Selected Reserve loan repayment 
program and would make both officers and enlisted members 
eligible for loan repayment.

 Section 672--Ensuring Entry into United States after Time Abroad for 
         Permanent Resident Alien Military Spouses and Children

    This section would allow the spouse and children of members 
of the armed forces stationed abroad, who are Lawful Permanent 
Residents, readmission without having abandoned status through 
long absence from the United States.

 Section 673--Overseas Naturalization for Military Spouses and Children

    This section would provide naturalization eligibility to 
accompanying Lawful Permanent Resident spouses and children of 
members of armed forces stationed abroad by treating their 
period of residence abroad as residence within the United 
States.

                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee is concerned about the ability of the Defense 
Health Program to support operational requirements and maintain 
the accessibility and quality of the health care provided to 
service members, retirees, and family members. The committee is 
aware of the fiscal constraints that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) faces and the resultant challenges providing for military 
medical readiness, force health protection, and health care 
services to all other beneficiaries. The committee remains 
concerned that the Department continues to push forward fee 
increase proposals that have not been thoughtfully analyzed, 
and included in the President's budget anticipated savings of 
$1.9 billion on potential recommendations from the task force 
on the future of military health care. While the task force is 
required to provide an interim report on potential fee 
increases by May 31, 2007, their final report may not be 
available until later this year. The assumption that the task 
force will recommend fee increases that have already been 
included in the President's budget request may taint the 
independence of the task force and its work. The committee 
remains concerned that the proposed cut may have a devastating 
impact on the defense health program and its ability to meet 
the military medical readiness and force health protection of 
the troops during a time of war. The committee was pleased that 
the House Committee on Budget shares its concern regarding the 
proposed $1.9 billion savings and restored the funds within the 
Department of Defense top line. The committee believes that a 
comprehensive approach to sustaining the military health care 
benefit is required and that changes to the military health 
care benefit require careful, deliberate consideration with a 
full accounting of the impact across the board. Therefore, the 
committee recommends restoring the $1.9 billion in savings to 
the Defense Health Care Program, and urges the Department to 
wait until the review of the task force is completed, as well 
as the Government Accountability Office audit, required by 
section 713 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), to conduct a 
thorough, informed review before making further recommendations 
that are assumed in the President's budget. The committee is 
well aware of the rising health care costs within the 
Department, but it also believes that proposed recommendations 
that directly impact service members, retirees and their 
families must be done in comprehensive and prudent manner.
    As Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom 
continue, the committee is concerned that the challenges faced 
by the military health care system continue to grow. The need 
for mental health providers to provide care and support for 
deployed and returning service members and their families 
continues to increase. Identification and treatment of service 
members with traumatic brain injuries continues to be a 
priority as greater numbers of service members are exposed to 
blast injuries in theater. The high deployment frequency of 
medical personnel is taking a toll on these skilled 
professionals who are being recruited by the private sector 
with better pay and an improved quality of life. Military to 
civilian conversions over the past several years seem to have 
compounded the problem and reduced access for service members 
and their families. Further, the proposed reduction in the Navy 
medical community is in direct contradiction to the ongoing 
need for medical personnel for deploying Marine units, as well 
as increased demand to grow the Marine Corps force.
    The committee is concerned that the Department does not 
seem able to address these concerns in a timely manner, and 
that the impact on the Defense Health Program will have 
profound consequences to service members and their families. As 
such, the committee proposes a mental health initiative, as 
well as a traumatic brain injury initiative to address the 
concerns that have been raised by service members and their 
families. The committee also proposes to address the reduction 
of Navy medical personnel and the proposed military to civilian 
conversions within other parts of this Act. The committee urges 
the Department to ensure that the Defense Health Program is 
fully funded to meet the growing demands placed on the system.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


         TRICARE Beneficiaries and Employer Group Health Plans

    Last year, Congress prohibited employers from providing 
certain financial or other incentives for a retired TRICARE 
beneficiary not to enroll under an employer-provided group 
health plan. Concerns were expressed last year that the 
treatment of cafeteria plans authorized under section 125 (26 
U.S.C. 125) of the Internal Revenue Code and non-TRICARE 
exclusive employer-provided health care incentives could be 
affected by the prohibition. The committee reiterates that it 
is not the intention to deny TRICARE eligible employees the 
opportunity to elect to participate in an employer group health 
plan in the same manner as other similarly situated employees, 
and that the provision should not be construed to effect, 
modify, or terminate the eligibility of a TRICARE eligible 
employee or spouse for their earned military health care 
benefit.
    Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
implement clarifications from the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services that certain common employer benefit programs 
do not constitute improper incentives under the law when 
setting TRICARE beneficiary policies as mandated in section 707 
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).

                 Joint Unified Medical Command Studies

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
intends to restructure the governance of the military health 
system. The committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Report 109-452) directed the Comptroller General to conduct a 
review of the various studies that the Department and other 
organizations have undertaken and provide an analysis of the 
various unified medical command structures under consideration 
by the Department and outside organizations and submit these 
findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services. The committee understands 
that the Comptroller General's review is ongoing. In addition, 
section 711 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) established the 
Department of Defense task force on the future of military 
health care and required the Secretary of Defense to assess and 
make recommendations on the appropriate command and control 
structure within the Department and the military services to 
manage the military health system. As such, the committee 
strongly urges that the Secretary defer organizational changes 
until the Comptroller General can review the assessments and 
recommendations from the task force.

                Military Gynecological Cancer Education

    The committee recognizes that many of the most serious and 
deadly cancers women face, such as cancers of the female 
reproductive system are under-diagnosed and treated. The 
committee believes that education is a vital element in the 
prevention of disease and therefore directs the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a replicable education curriculum and 
produce related educational materials on the signs, symptoms, 
treatment options, and prevention of gynecological cancers to 
be utilized by the military services worldwide to help female 
members of the armed forces in the ongoing battle against 
gynecological cancers.

                   Military Mental Health Initiative

    The committee is aware of the challenges the Department of 
Defense faces providing mental health programs to combat 
veterans and their families. To help the Department deal with 
these challenges, section 723 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) 
required the Secretary of Defense to create a Department of 
Defense Task Force on Mental Health. The committee understands 
that the task force will report its findings by August, 2007. 
The committee notes the wealth of new concepts and technologies 
of varying levels of maturity that emerge annually from the 
nation's academic and medical base. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a Military Mental Health 
Initiative to coordinate mental health research and development 
for the Department. The Initiative would provide the 
opportunity for researchers to compete for funding on both the 
basis of scientific merit and the contribution that the studies 
could make to the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of 
mental health issues. The committee further directs the 
Secretary to submit a report on the status of the Initiative to 
the congressional defense committees within 180 days after 
passage of this Act.
    The committee recommends that the projects to be considered 
for funding under the Military Mental Health Initiative 
include, but are not limited to the following:
    (1) Expansion of the Soldier Wellness Assessment Pilot 
Program at Fort Lewis to include service members from the 
reserve components.
    (2) Pilot program using the Soldier Wellness Assessment 
Pilot Program methodology at an active duty Army installation 
with at least one deployable brigade combat team.
    (3) Study of late-onset post traumatic stress disorder 
(PTSD) involving a cohort of service members at least two years 
removed from service in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation 
Enduring Freedom who have not been diagnosed with PTSD to 
identify the prevalence of undiagnosed PTSD and its impact on 
their continuing service.
    (4) Study of a cohort of female service members returning 
from Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to 
determine the incidence of PTSD and their continuing needs for 
care; including treatment for the psychological effects of 
sexual assault.
    (5) Study of the feasibility and potential benefits of 
mandatory one-on-one counseling between service members 
returning from an overseas operational deployment and a mental 
health practitioner.
    (6) Study on the effect of a parent's, or parents', combat 
deployment on children to develop a screening system to 
identify behavioral signals that indicate a child is having 
trouble coping with the separation.
    (7) Inventory and analysis of all outreach programs that 
promote the availability of mental health services for 
dependents of service members who have served in a combat 
theater to identify best practices.

  Multi-Center Clinical Research Trials for the Treatment of Military 
                              Burn Victims

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
study on entering into an association with an organization with 
significant expertise in the treatment of burns for the purpose 
of organizing, administering, and overseeing the conduct of 
controlled multi-center evidence-based clinical research trials 
in burn treatment at qualified independent academic medical 
organizations. The committee directs the Secretary to submit a 
report on the findings of this study to the congressional 
defense committees within 180 days following enactment of this 
Act.

                   Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative

    The committee is aware that a significant number of combat 
injured patients evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan have a 
traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many of these injuries result 
from blasts and are not always accompanied by physically 
observable head trauma. The committee is concerned that service 
members with undiagnosed and untreated TBI may experience long-
term medical effects from the injury. The committee wants to 
ensure that all service members with a potential TBI receive a 
timely diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and rehabilitation. 
Further, the committee is concerned that undiagnosed TBI may 
compromise operational readiness.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
comprehensive and systematic approach for the identification, 
treatment, disposition, and documentation of TBI, including 
mild to moderate TBI, for combat and peace time injuries. 
Further, the committee directed the Secretary to develop a 
comprehensive approach by May 1, 2007, and to report its 
actions to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services.
    The committee believes that the growing number of service 
members with TBI places more emphasis on the need for 
coordinated research, diagnosis, and treatment options to 
provide improved medical care and rehabilitation. The committee 
recognizes that the military medical system is now at the 
forefront of managing TBI. The committee directs the Secretary 
to establish the TBI Research and Treatment Initiative, to 
provide the opportunity for emerging technologies and concepts 
to compete for funding on both the basis of their technical 
merit and the contribution that the advances could, if 
implemented, make to the treatment and rehabilitation of those 
with TBI. Further, the Initiative may support the activities of 
a TBI center of excellence. The committee also directs the 
Secretary to submit a report on the status of the Initiative to 
the congressional defense committees within 180 days after 
passage of this Act.
    The committee recommends that the projects to be considered 
for funding under the TBI Research and Treatment Initiative 
include, but are not limited to the following:
          (1) Chronic epilepsy in severe head injuries program;
          (2) Comprehensive neuroscience program; and
          (3) Study TBI outcomes at a federal treatment 
        facility with a designated TBI treatment and 
        rehabilitation program that is affiliated with a public 
        university medical school, to include joint residency 
        programs, to identify best practices.
          (4) Neuro-protectant medication that can be 
        administered in the field immediately after the injury 
        is sustained.

                          TRICARE Fraud Study

    The committee notes that the budget request for the 
Department of Defense requested authority to suspend 
eligibility for health care benefits of a covered beneficiary 
who commits fraud against the TRICARE program. The committee is 
aware that currently the only sanctions available to the 
Department are recovery of erroneous payments and medical 
claims notification. However, the committee was not provided 
sufficient information to determine the actual frequency of 
fraud or its impact on the TRICARE program. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to 
determine the prevalence and scope of billing fraud being 
committed by covered beneficiaries against the TRICARE program 
and to submit a report on the results of the review to the 
congressional defense committees within 90 days of enactment of 
this Act.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 701--Extension of Prohibition on Increases in Certain Health 
            Care Costs for Members of the Uniformed Services

    This section would extend the prohibition establish by the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007 (Public Law 109-364) on the Department of Defense (DOD) 
from increasing the premium, deductible and copayment for 
TRICARE Prime, the charge for inpatient care for TRICARE 
Standard, and the premium for TRICARE Reserve Select, and 
TRICARE Standard for members of the Selected Reserve during the 
period from October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2008. The 
committee shares the DOD's concern about the rise in the cost 
of military health care and the potential for the escalating 
cost to have a negative impact on the ability of the Department 
to sustain the benefit over the long-term. However, the 
committee believes that changes to the military health care 
benefit require careful, deliberate consideration with a full 
accounting of the impact across the board. The committee makes 
these recommendations to allow for a period of time to shape a 
more balanced approach to address the cost of military health 
care.

  Section 702--Temporary Prohibition on Increase in Copayments Under 
          Retail Pharmacy System of Pharmacy Benefits Program

    This section would limit the cost-sharing requirements for 
drugs provided through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program to 
amounts not more than $3 for generic drugs, $9 for formulary 
drugs and $22 for non-formulary drugs. The cost sharing 
schedules established by this section would end September 30, 
2008.

       Section 703--Fair Pricing Under Pharmacy Benefits Program

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
exclude pharmaceutical agents from the pharmacy benefits 
program that are not provided to the Secretary at the same 
price or lower than the price of the agent under section 8126 
of title 38, United States Code.

 Section 704--Prohibition on Conversion of Military Medical and Dental 
           Positions to Civilian Medical and Dental Positions

    This section would prohibit the secretary of a military 
department from converting any military medical or dental 
position to a civilian medical or dental position on or after 
October 1, 2007. The committee considers a conversion of a 
military medical position to a civilian position to occur on 
the effective date of the manning authorization document upon 
which the position is changed. Further, this section would 
repeal section 742 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 
Under section 742, secretaries of the military departments were 
required to certify that conversion of military medical 
positions to civilian positions did not increase the cost, or 
erode access to or the quality of military health care. The 
committee is concerned that conversions of military medical 
positions to civilian medical positions for fiscal year 2007 
took place before the secretaries provided the committee with 
the required certification.

        Section 705--Establishment of Nurse Practitioner Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a graduate education program in advanced practice 
nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences. The committee recognizes the contribution military 
nurse practitioners make to the military health system, and 
establishing a permanent, Department of Defense-wide education 
program at the University will allow the services to expand 
their use of nurse practitioners. The committee also recognizes 
the services' urgent need for additional mental health 
professionals; therefore, this section would require that the 
advanced practice nursing program specialties include, at a 
minimum, family practice and psychiatric or mental health 
practice. This section would also require that the curriculum 
be fully eligible to meet credentialing requirements of the 
military services and of the individual states.

           Section 706--Services of Mental Health Counselors

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

    Section 707--Extension of Pilot Program for Health Care Delivery

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

Section 708--Stipend for Members of Reserve Components for Health Care 
                         for Certain Dependents

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
pay a stipend for continuing health care coverage to reserve 
members called to active duty with a dependent possessing a 
special health care need that would best be met by remaining in 
the member's civilian health plan.

                  Section 709--Joint Pathology Center

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a Joint Pathology Center located on the National 
Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. The Center would 
function as the reference center in pathology for the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
providing services in: diagnostic pathology consultation in 
medicine, dentistry, and veterinary sciences; pathology 
education, to include graduate medical education, including 
residency and fellowship programs, and continuing medical 
education; and diagnostic pathology research.

Section 710--Report on Training in Preservation of Remains under Combat 
                      or Combat-Related Conditions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services a report on the training in 
preservation of remains in combat or combat-related conditions 
required by section 567 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
within 180 days of enactment of this Act.

 Section 711--Pre- and Post-Deployment Assessments for the Purpose of 
  Determining the Cognitive Functioning and Brain Health of Deployed 
                      Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
collaboration with the secretaries of the military departments, 
to establish a computer-based program that assesses the 
cognitive functioning of service members prior to and after 
returning from deployment in support of the global war on 
terror, to include Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
Enduring Freedom. Further, this section would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the implementation 
of this section to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
House Committee on Armed Services within nine months of 
enactment of this Act.

  Section 712--Guaranteed Funding for Walter Reed Army Medical Center

    This section would require that the funds available for 
Walter Reed Army Medical Center would be the same amount 
expended by the Commander of Walter Reed in fiscal year 2006 
until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the 
expanded facilities at the National Naval Medical Center, 
Bethesda, Maryland and DeWitt Army Community Hospital, Fort 
Belvoir, Virginia, have sufficient staff, equipment, and 
capacity to provide at least the same level of care provided at 
Walter Reed during fiscal year 2006.

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

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


               Analysis of Contractor Payment Withholding

    The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense will 
be required to withhold three percent of certain payments to 
contractors, effective January 1, 2011, in accordance with the 
requirements of section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-222). The committee 
is concerned that there may be significant costs associated 
with the management and implementation of such a withholding 
system, as well as potential cost and performance impacts for 
contractors. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to assess the impacts of compliance with section 511 
and submit a report containing the assessment of this impact to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services by April 1, 2008. Such an assessment should 
include, but is not limited to, the cost of modifications to 
defense financial accounting systems, additional personnel 
costs, and anticipated consequences for defense contractors in 
terms of performance, subcontractor management, and cost 
escalation.

                  Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan

    The committee remains concerned about the level of 
oversight for contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. These 
countries present uniquely complex challenges for contracting 
and contract oversight, but U.S. efforts in these countries 
will continue to require significant contractor support. The 
committee believes that government responsibilities for a range 
of issues involving contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
unclear. This lack of clarity includes, among other things, 
oversight of private security contractors carrying weapons. 
Most private security contractors work on contracts let by 
either the Department of State or the United States Agency for 
International Development, however, they operate in the middle 
of a military theater of operations and their actions reflect 
strongly on the image of the U.S. Government. The extent to 
which military commanders have, and are able to exercise 
responsibility over, private security contractors is unclear, 
especially as it relates to potential violations of law. The 
committee believes that clarification of roles and 
responsibilities for contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
increased oversight will enhance the effectiveness of U.S. 
Government efforts in both countries. Accordingly, the 
committee has included legislative provisions in this title to 
accomplish both goals, and to address instances where contract 
abuses occur.

         Department of the Navy Military Deputy for Acquisition

    The committee is extremely concerned by recent cost, 
schedule, and performance issues with acquisition programs 
managed by the Department of the Navy such as, the 
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the VH-71 helicopter, the 
Littoral Combat Ship, and the Extended Range Guided Munition 
and notes that the Secretary of the Navy has not designated a 
military deputy in the grade of vice admiral to aid in the 
acquisition oversight role alongside the Assistant Secretary of 
the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN(RDA)). 
The committee commends the Secretary of the Air Force and the 
Secretary of the Army for recognizing the requirement and 
designating an officer in the grade of lieutenant general to 
serve as the military deputy to the senior civilian acquisition 
executive within their respective Departments.
    The committee believes that a military deputy for 
acquisition within the Department of the Navy could provide 
sound expert advice and guidance to the ASN(RDA) on acquisition 
and procurement policies, as well as a valuable linkage to the 
systems commands that report independently to the Chief of 
Naval Operations. The committee also believes that a military 
deputy for acquisition could reinforce with all stakeholders 
the need for fiscal, requirements, and leadership stability.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by September 1, 
2007, which shall address the need, or lack thereof, for a 
military deputy to the ASN(RDA) in the grade of vice admiral. 
The report shall provide a detailed justification, including 
the perceived benefits and value added contributions provided 
by the military acquisition deputies of the Air Force and Army, 
and discuss the extent to which such benefits and contributions 
could be replicated within the Department of the Navy.

                 Domestic Sourcing for Ship Components

    The committee remains concerned about the shipbuilding 
industrial base and its ability to support the Navy's long-term 
shipbuilding plan in future years. The committee notes that 
while the law requiring the domestic construction of ship hulls 
and superstructures (10 U.S.C. 7309) is both stringent and 
strictly enforced, an increasing share of the ship construction 
budget is actually expended on combat systems for naval ships. 
As such, a growing percentage of naval ship construction 
components are now eligible for production in overseas 
facilities. The committee urges the Navy to consider the 
domestic industrial base for all significant components of ship 
construction when formulating shipbuilding programs and its 
long-term shipbuilding plan. The committee expects that the 
Navy's policies relating to the domestic production of critical 
ship capabilities will be kept consistent with industry trends.

                       Domestic Steel Production

    The committee is aware that the United States' domestic 
steel production capability is an important element in the 
defense industrial base, and that the Department of Defense 
relies upon the domestic steel industry for many critical 
capabilities, including jet aircraft, submarines and Humvees. 
The committee is also aware that the industry is under intense 
competitive pressure with increasing consolidation of domestic 
steel producers. As a result of this consolidation, foreign 
owned companies now control more than a quarter of the annual 
North American industry output. This is an historic change for 
an industry that previously was almost exclusively domestically 
owned. Section 843 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
codified in section 187, title 10, United States Code, 
established a Strategic Materials Protection Board whose 
mission is, in part, to determine the need to provide a long 
term domestic supply of materials designated as critical to 
national security to ensure that national defense needs are 
met. The committee urges the Department and the Board to 
consider the critical contributions to national security made 
by the domestic steel industry, and to examine whether past and 
future consolidation of the domestic industry has led the 
United States' domestic steel production capacity to atrophy. 
The committee encourages the Department and the Board to work 
with other government agencies to ensure that the United States 
has access to a long term domestic supply of steel.

                        High Performance Magnets

    The committee is aware that high-performance magnets are 
critical components in numerous Department of Defense weapon 
systems including Aegis radars, M1A1 tanks, unmanned aerial 
vehicles, and the joint direct attack munition. The committee 
is also aware that the industry is under intense competitive 
pressure with less than five remaining domestic manufacturers. 
As a result, the committee is concerned about the continued 
availability of these critical materials from domestic sources. 
Section 843 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) requires the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a Strategic Materials 
Protection Board to recommend a strategy to the President that 
ensures the domestic availability of materials designated as 
critical to national security. The committee urges the 
Department and the Board to consider the critical contributions 
to national security made by the domestic high-performance 
magnet industry, especially during consideration of any past or 
future domestic non-availability determinations, and to ensure 
the continued availability of these items from domestic 
sources. The committee encourages the Department and the Board 
to consider protections for certain classes of high-performance 
magnets, such as rare-earths and ferrites, which are commonly 
used in Department of Defense weapons systems, but are not 
currently protected in statute.

  Improving Identification and Acquisition of Commercial Information 
                               Technology

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) budgeting and acquisition processes continue to struggle 
to keep pace with the innovative cycle of information 
technology (IT). The committee believes that the commercial 
sector leads the government in the development of new IT 
capabilities and is better suited to responsively and 
effectively incorporate the rapid technological advances 
associated with such systems. While the Department is working 
to rapidly acquire new technology and to facilitate a rapid 
transfer of technology from development programs to 
procurement, the committee believes that the overly 
decentralized nature of DOD's processes and organizations for 
identifying and acquiring IT have caused several problems. 
First, decentralization has inhibited cooperation across 
components regarding coordination and requirements and has led 
to duplicative efforts and inefficient spending. Second, 
decentralization has created difficulty for non-traditional 
defense companies seeking to enter into the defense market, as 
an overall lack of clearly defined standards, established 
requirements, and consistent policy goals have created 
confusion and acted as a disincentive to participation.
    The committee remains concerned that DOD's inability to 
effectively incorporate and utilize commercially developed IT 
represents a significant shortcoming in DOD's ability to 
provide for the nation's security. Because DOD's IT investment 
represents a significant portion of the overall defense budget, 
the committee seeks to maximize the returns associated with 
such investment and to ensure that the Department can provide 
the best, most modern IT systems to meet DOD's mission 
requirements.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a roadmap for restructuring the Department in order 
to optimize its ability to identify, assess, stimulate 
investment in, and rapidly acquire and coordinate the use of 
commercial IT. The committee directs the Secretary to provide 
the roadmap to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2008. The report shall:
          (1) Identify current organizations, mechanisms, and 
        processes for identifying promising IT systems and 
        assessing them against validated requirements from the 
        services, defense agencies, and combatant commanders, 
        including information flows and possible gaps or 
        overlaps in responsibility;
          (2) Identify a single position or organization that 
        will provide strategic direction and be responsible as 
        the lead IT advocate within the Department, and include 
        a detailed explanation of the authorities granted to 
        this position or organization for carrying out such 
        responsibilities;
          (3) Recommend changes to existing organizations, 
        statutes, mechanisms, or processes to increase 
        efficiency and provide for commercial IT solutions to 
        be acquired and applied to warfighter requirements in 
        24 months or less; and
          (4) Identify funding requirements in order to carry 
        out the responsibilities, as recommended.

              Other Transaction Authority for IT Programs

    The committee understands that acquisition system processes 
and the issue of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection 
are often cited as barriers to contractual relationships 
between the Department of Defense (DOD) and commercial 
information technology (IT) firms. The committee notes, 
however, that the Department may use ``Other Transactions 
Authority'' (OTA) to enter into contracts for prototypes and 
that such authority allows the Department to waive normal 
Federal Acquisition Regulation contracting rules, as necessary.
    The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to assess the extent to 
which OTAs are being utilized by the Department to facilitate 
the development and acquisition of IT systems. The report shall 
be submitted to the congressional defense committees by March 
1, 2008, and include:
          (1) A determination of the extent of OTA usage across 
        all DOD IT-related programs;
          (2) An assessment of the effectiveness of utilizing 
        OTAs in IT programs in terms of cost, schedule, and 
        overall value to the government;
          (3) An assessment of the effectiveness of utilizing 
        OTAs in IT programs in terms of the recruitment of non-
        traditional defense companies;
          (4) An assessment of DOD training and certification 
        requirements for program managers and other members of 
        the acquisition community in the use and application of 
        OTAs; and
          (5) An identification of and recommendation about any 
        limitations or modifications to OTAs or related 
        acquisition processes that should be considered prior 
        to further use of such authority.

                Procurement Technical Assistance Program

    The committee recognizes the importance of the Procurement 
Technical Assistance Program (PTAP), a nationwide network of 
community-based, dedicated procurement professionals who 
provide critical assistance to small businesses seeking to 
participate in Department of Defense and other federal agency 
procurement contracts. The program is authorized under section 
2412 of title 10, United States Code. The PTAP helps generate 
new procurement suppliers for the Department, resulting in a 
stronger industrial base, greater competition, and higher 
quality goods at lower cost for the taxpayer. The committee is 
concerned that the budget request for the PTAP has been 
insufficient to fund the needs of the many state and regional 
centers carrying out the program. The committee urges the 
Department to increase the PTAP annual budget request to a 
level sufficient to fully fund the operations of all state and 
regional centers.

  Report on the Use of Simplified Acquisition Procedures for Certain 
                            Commercial Items

    In section 814 of this Act, the committee included a 
provision that would extend the authority provided in section 
4202(e) of the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106) 
for an two additional years until January 1, 2010. Section 
4202(e) provided authority to use simplified acquisition 
procedures for the purchase of property or services that are 
commercial items of no more than $5.0 million in value. The 
committee notes that this authority was originally provided for 
a limited time in order to test the ability of these simplified 
procedures to increase efficiency in government contracting. 
However, the Government Accountability Office has reported on 
two occasions that it is unable to evaluate the results of this 
test program due to insufficient and unreliable data on the use 
of this authority in contracting. The committee directs the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 
2008, on the use in Department of Defense contracting of the 
simplified acquisition procedures provided in section 4202 of 
the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106), and to 
include in the report summary data on the use of this 
authority, specific examples where the authority has been used, 
and an evaluation of how this authority should be limited or 
extended after January 1, 2010.

                      Rights to Programmatic Data

    The committee notes with concern anecdotal reports that 
major defense acquisition programs have been forced to seek 
contractual remedies to ensure that the Department of Defense 
obtains design, test, cost, or other programmatic data which 
would otherwise be withheld due to contractor claims that such 
data is proprietary or is not specifically listed as a 
deliverable under the terms of the contract. The committee 
believes strongly that the Department of Defense should not 
allow the government's rights to taxpayer-funded data to be 
relinquished due to lack of proper planning during contract 
negotiations. As a general policy, the United States taxpayer 
should not have to pay twice for the same product; rather, 
having paid to develop and test a product, the government 
should have rights to design, test, and cost data for any 
governmental purpose. At the same time, the committee 
acknowledges the importance of preserving individual and 
corporate intellectual property rights for the purposes of 
fostering innovation, which is the lifeblood of the United 
States economy.
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with 
the Service Acquisition Executives and Directors of the Defense 
Agencies, to analyze contracting actions taken between October 
1, 2004, and September 30, 2007, to identify the number of 
times the government was forced to seek a contractual remedy to 
obtain design, test, cost or other programmatic data for a 
major defense acquisition program, as defined by section 2430 
of title 10, United States Code, after the award of the 
original contract. Further, the committee directs the Secretary 
to determine whether there are sufficient occurrences of such 
actions to suggest that Department of Defense contracting 
officers should receive specialized training in the negotiation 
of intellectual property rights and contractual deliverables. 
Finally, the committee directs that the Secretary transmit his 
findings, along with a planned course of action, to the 
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and Committee on 
Armed Services of the House of Representatives, no later than 
March 1, 2008.

                      Selected Acquisition Reports

    The committee notes that the Selected Acquisition Report 
(SAR) provides an essential oversight tool for Major Defense 
Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) for both the Department of Defense 
and for Congress. Section 803 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
required the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics to conduct a study on possible 
revisions to the SAR, which would allow the Department to more 
effectively use the SAR for oversight activities and would 
potentially increase consistency among DOD sources of program 
information. This report has yet to be submitted. The committee 
is also aware that the Department is piloting concepts such as 
time certain delivery, capital accounts, and other new 
approaches to acquisition, which will change the way that MDAPs 
are evaluated and overseen within the Department. The committee 
believes that the SAR should be the basis for a common body of 
knowledge about the progress of MDAPs, and therefore, that it 
is critical that the SAR include and accurately reflect the 
critical information on which programs are judged and evaluated 
within the Department. In order to accurately assess potential 
new approaches to acquisition, Congress will need to have 
access to new measures of program progress, and to traditional 
measures that have been included in previous SARs. The 
committee expects the report, when submitted, to include 
recommendations on additions to the SAR necessary to evaluate 
new approaches to acquisition being piloted within the 
Department. The committee notes that it will be difficult for 
the committee to evaluate, and potentially provide support for, 
new approaches to acquisition without this information.

                       Small Business Contracting

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
regularly has achieved the goal of awarding prime contracts 
with a total value not less than 5.8 percent of the value of 
all DOD contracts to small disadvantaged businesses. However, 
the committee is disappointed that the Department often has not 
achieved the related goal of awarding subcontracts of not less 
than 5 percent of contract value to these businesses. The 
committee is also aware that continuing difficulties exist in 
verifying the accuracy of contract data supporting these 
findings. Furthermore, the committee notes that these goals 
should not be interpreted as ceilings for the use of small 
disadvantaged businesses. The committee encourages the 
Department to examine areas of contracting where the 
utilization of small disadvantaged businesses is not meeting 
these goals and adopt policies and procedures designed to 
increase utilization in those areas including the use of price 
evaluation adjustments if appropriate.

                  Strategic Materials Protection Board

    Section 843 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
codified in section 187, title 10, United States Code, 
established a Strategic Materials Protection Board whose 
mission is, in part, to determine the need to provide a long 
term domestic supply of materials designated as critical to 
national security to ensure that national defense needs are 
met. As the Board organizes and begins its deliberations, the 
committee encourages the Board to focus on the availability and 
national security need for materials rather than focusing on 
the health of certain industry sectors. In this manner, the 
Board will meet Congressional intent and will be less likely to 
overlook a dwindling domestic capability to supply a material 
that may be critical to national security, but which may 
represent a small portion of a particular industrial sector's 
supply chain.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management


             Section 801--Definition of Commercial Services

    This section would require the Administrator of the Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy to revise the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) to clarify the definition of commercial 
services. The revision would define commercial services in the 
FAR exactly as they are defined in section 4 of the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et. seq.). This 
section would also require the Administrator of the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy to identify procedures for the 
acquisition of non-commercial services of a type similar to 
commercial services. The Administrator would choose procedures 
after determining those that are in the best interest of the 
U.S. Government.

             Section 802--Acquisition Workforce Provisions

    This section would repeal subparagraph (H) of section 37 
(h)(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
U.S.C. 403 et. seq.), thereby making permanent the acquisition 
workforce training fund. The fund supports the training of 
acquisition personnel of the federal government and is financed 
by contract fees. The fund has proven to be an efficient and 
effective mechanism of providing for the training of the 
acquisition workforce, which will be a long-term requirement of 
the federal government.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
include a section on the acquisition workforce in the next 
Department of Defense strategic human capital plan required by 
section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163). The section of the plan 
relating to the acquisition workforce would identify the 
budgets programmed in the Future Years Defense Program for 
training of the acquisition workforce; an assessment of whether 
such funds are adequate; and measures to protect such funds 
from diversion to other uses. The plan would also identify the 
requirement, if any, to change the skill mix in the acquisition 
workforce, and to adopt incentives to recruit and retain high 
quality personnel.

Section 803--Guidance on Defense Procurements Made through Contracts of 
                             Other Agencies

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to update guidance 
issued to the Department of Defense regarding interagency 
contracting. The updated guidance would provide that:
          (1) Items, which are unique to the Department, should 
        not be acquired through contracts of other agencies;
          (2) Program managers or other acquisition officials 
        considering the use of a contract of a non-defense 
        agency should first determine, through market research 
        and by other means, that no identical or substantially 
        similar article is currently being procured by the 
        Department; and
          (3) DOD program managers or other acquisition 
        officials must communicate to the non-defense agency 
        the appropriations and procurement requirements 
        applicable to the procurement.

 Section 804--Prohibition on Procurement from Beneficiaries of Foreign 
                               Subsidies

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

Section 805--Prohibition on Procurement from Companies in Violation of 
                the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act

    This section would prohibit the use of funds for the 
procurement of goods or services from a source subject to 
sanctions for violations of the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation 
Act (Public Law 106-178) or from any source that is owned or 
controlled by a sanctioned entity. This section would apply to 
prime contracts and subcontracts at any tier. The restriction 
can be waived if the Secretary of Defense determines there is a 
compelling reason to contract with such a source and no 
reasonably equivalent products or services are available from a 
non-sanctioned source.

                  Section 806--Lead System Integrators

    This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from 
awarding new contracts for lead systems integrator functions, 
effective October 1, 2011. This section would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees by October 1, 2008, which would include a 
plan to adjust the acquisition workforce to identify positions 
and skills that are inherently governmental in nature; identify 
acquisition workforce skill gaps; create a plan for closing 
such skill gaps; develop a plan for matching acquisition 
personnel to programs based on program risk; and identify 
authorities that may be required on an interim basis until a 
sufficient number of qualified government personnel are 
available to perform inherently governmental functions. This 
section would allow the Department of Defense to continue to 
award contracts for acquisition support services, if the 
contractor does not perform inherently governmental functions 
or subcontract to an entity owned in whole or in part by the 
contractor. Finally, the section defines the terms ``lead 
systems integrator'' and ``major system.''

Section 807--Procurement Goal for Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions 
                 and Alaska Native-Serving Institutions

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

  Section 808--Reinvestment in Domestic Sources of Strategic Materials

    This section would require that the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics issue 
guidance requiring that all Department of Defense solicitations 
for major systems that could contain strategic materials 
clearly specify that an evaluation criteria for such proposals 
will be the extent to which suppliers of strategic materials 
demonstrate a record of sustained reinvestment in domestic 
production of such material. This section would require that 
this evaluation criteria be incorporated by reference in 
solicitations at any contractual tier.
    This section would also require that the Strategic 
Materials Protection Board, established under section 187 of 
title 10, United States Code, report annually on the use of 
this evaluation criteria and the long-term viability of 
suppliers of strategic materials.

  Section 809--Clarification of the Protection of Strategic Materials 
                     Critical to National Security

    This section would amend section 2533b of title 10, United 
States Code, which relates to restrictions on the procurement 
of specialty metals, to define the term ``required form'' in 
that section as mill products such as slab, plate and sheet in 
the required form necessary. This section would also clarify 
the definition of ``commercial item'' used in section 2533b of 
title 10, United States Code to include commercial off the 
shelf items. This section would require that any domestic non-
determinations made between December 6, 2006 and the date 60 
days after the date of enactment of this act shall comply with 
this section.

Section 810--Debarment of Contractors Convicted of Criminal Violations 
                     of the Arms Export Control Act

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
debar any contractor who has been convicted of a criminal 
violation of the Arms Export Control Act (22 USC 2751 et seq.) 
for a period not to exceed 5 years. This section would allow 
the Secretary to determine that the restriction in this section 
does not apply if there is a compelling reason to use the 
contractor concerned. This section would also require the 
Administrator of the General Services Administration to make 
any notice of debarment available for public inspection.

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


Section 811--Change to the Truth in Negotiations Act Exception for the 
                    Acquisition of a Commercial Item

    This section would amend section 2306 a of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the submission of cost or pricing data 
under the Truth in Negotiations Act (10 U.S.C. 2306a) for sole-
source contracts for commercial items if the contracting 
officer is otherwise unable to locate sufficient sales data to 
determine that a price is fair and reasonable.

  Section 812--Clarification of Submission of Cost or Pricing Data on 
            Noncommercial Modifications of Commercial Items

    This section would amend section 2306a of title 10, United 
States Code, to align two thresholds under the Truth in 
Negotiations Act (10 U.S.C. 2306a). The Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 
Law 108-375) required that procurements involving a commercial 
item with noncommercial modifications totaling more than $0.5 
million comply with the requirements for submission of cost or 
pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act (10 U.S.C. 
2306a). In addition, it required that procurements involving a 
commercial item with noncommercial modifications totaling more 
than five percent of the total value of the item require the 
submission of cost or pricing data. The thresholds in the Truth 
in Negotiations Act (10 U.S.C. 2306a) are adjusted for 
inflation, but the requirement relating to noncommercial 
modifications of commercial items is not adjusted to the same 
level as other thresholds in the Act due to its later 
enactment. This section would align the threshold for 
noncommercial modifications of commercial items with the other 
thresholds, including adjustments for inflation. It would also 
clarify that the calculation of whether noncommercial 
modifications to a commercial item exceed five percent is made 
at contract award.

Section 813--Plan for Restricting Government-Unique Contract Clauses on 
                          Commercial Contracts

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to develop and 
implement a plan to restrict the use of government-unique 
contract clauses on commercial contracts to those specifically 
required in law or regulation, or those which are specifically 
relevant to the contract in question. The committee notes that 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 
103-355) limited the number of government-unique contract 
clauses on commercial contracts. Since the passage of that Act, 
however, the number of government-unique contract clauses has 
grown, and policy decisions have been made to include contract 
clauses in all Department of Defense (DOD) contracts that are 
not required in law or regulation. The committee expects that 
the plan developed under this section would allow the inclusion 
of contract clauses in commercial contracts only when their 
inclusion in the contract is relevant and necessary to that 
particular contract, and are not included on a blanket basis 
for all contracts unless so required by law or regulation. The 
committee notes that contracting officers have means other than 
contract clauses to ensure that commercial items provided to 
the Department comply with all relevant DOD policies.

 Section 814--Extension of Authority for Use of Simplified Acquisition 
                Procedures for Certain Commercial Items

    This section would amend section 4202(e) of the Clinger 
Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to extend the authority 
to use simplified acquisition procedures for the purchase of 
property or services that are commercial items of no more than 
$5.0 million in value. This section would extend the authority 
for two additional years until January 1, 2010.

Section 815--Extension of Authority to Fill Shortage Category Positions 
               for Certain Federal Acquisition Positions

    This section would amend section 1413(b) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136) to extend the authority provided to fill shortage category 
positions in the acquisition workforce for an additional five 
years, until September 30, 2012.

  Section 816--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain Prototype 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the time frame in which the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military 
department may enter into ``Other Transactions'' in carrying 
out certain prototype R&D projects. The authority under this 
section is extended until September 30, 2013.

Section 817--Clarification of Limited Acquisition Authority for Special 
                           Operations Command

    This section would clarify the authorities available to 
U.S. Special Operations Command by codifying the position of 
acquisition executive and senior procurement executive, 
respectively. This section would allow for the designation of 
the same individual to serve in both positions.

   Section 818--Exemption of Special Operations Command from Certain 
 Requirements for Contracts Relating to Vessels, Aircraft, and Combat 
                                Vehicles

    This section amends current law and would exempt U.S. 
Special Operations Command from leasing limitations as required 
in section 2401 of title 10, United States Code. This section 
would authorize the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, 
to enter into lease agreements with terms up to five years in 
length if the full projected cost of such a lease is available 
and obligated prior to the date of the award of the contract.

 Section 819--Provision of Authority to Maintain Equipment to Unified 
                Combatant Command for Joint Warfighting

    This section would amend section 167a of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Commander of the U.S. Joint Forces 
Command (JFCOM) to provide funding for the maintenance of items 
procured under the limited acquisition authority provided to 
JFCOM. The committee notes that the maintenance and sustainment 
of military equipment is primarily the responsibility of the 
military services, and that JFCOM is neither designed nor 
funded to perform this task. However, the committee is aware 
that items procured under the limited acquisition authority 
provided to JFCOM may not immediately be supported by a 
military service. The committee expects that JFCOM will 
exercise the authority provided in this section only to the 
extent that it has the capacity to do so effectively and 
efficiently, and for a period of no more than two years for any 
individual system. The committee is also concerned that use of 
this authority could divert resources from other high priority 
tasks at JFCOM. Accordingly, this section would require that 
funding allocated under this authority must be authorized and 
appropriated specifically for this purpose.

                      Section 820--Market Research

    This section would amend section 2377 of title 10 United 
States Code, to clarify requirements relating to market 
research for procurements in excess of the simplified 
acquisition threshold and require the use of an appropriately 
tailored search engine to identify capabilities available in 
the commercial market place. This section would also require 
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics evaluate options for preference for 
contractors that maximize the use of capabilities in the 
commercial market place.

               Subtitle C--Accountability in Contracting


     Section 821--Limitation on Length of Noncompetitive Contracts

    This section would require a revision of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, within one year following the date of 
enactment, in order to limit the period of performance on 
certain contracts. This section would apply only to contracts 
valued at more than $1.0 million that, due to urgent and 
compelling need, are awarded using procedures other than full 
and open competition. This section would also limit the 
contract period to the minimum period necessary to meet the 
urgent and compelling requirement and to enter into a follow-on 
contract through the use of competitive procedures. In general, 
this section limits the contract period to not more than one 
year. The contract period limitation can be waived by the head 
of the executive agency or, in the case of the Department of 
Defense, the secretary of a military department, the head of a 
defense agency, or the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, upon a determination 
that the Government would be seriously injured by the 
limitation on the contract period.
    The committee acknowledges that there may be circumstances, 
particularly during a time of war, during which the Department 
may require the use of noncompetitive contracts on the basis of 
urgent and compelling need. The committee believes that, in 
most circumstances, it should be possible to negotiate follow-
on contracts using competitive procedures within a one-year 
period. The committee provides a waiver to this limitation in 
recognition of the fact that, in some cases, it may be possible 
that the limitation on the contract period would result in 
injury to the Government. The committee has not limited the 
delegation of this waiver authority, but expects that it will 
be assigned at a level appropriate for making a determination 
on the possibility of serious injury occurring due to the 
limitation of the contract period.

       Section 822--Maximizing Fixed-Price Procurement Contracts

    This section would require each executive agency that 
awarded contracts in a total amount of $1.0 billion or more 
during the previous fiscal year to develop and implement a plan 
to maximize, where appropriate, the use of fixed-price type 
contracts for the procurement of goods and services, including 
a single plan for the Department of Defense. All plans must 
contain measurable goals and be submitted to Congress and the 
Comptroller General within one year. This section would also 
require the Comptroller General to review the agency plans and 
submit a report to Congress within six months of receiving the 
plans.
    The committee believes that fixed-price type contracts are 
appropriately used when the risk involved can be predicted with 
an acceptable degree of certainty. The committee also believes 
that, in the case of complex contract requirements, 
particularly those unique to the government, cost-reimbursement 
contracts can be fully appropriate. This is especially true for 
complex research and development contracts, when performance 
uncertainties or the likelihood of changes makes it difficult 
to estimate performance costs in advance. The committee 
recommends the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics evaluate methods to reduce risk to 
the Government in procurement contracts and, as a result, 
appropriately maximize the use of fixed-price type contracts 
for procurement.

Section 823--Public Disclosure of Justification and Approval Documents 
                     for Non-Competitive Contracts

    This section would require the head of an executive agency 
to make certain justification and approval documents relating 
to the use of noncompetitive procedures in contracting 
available on the website of the agency and through the Federal 
Procurement Data System within 14 days of contract award. In 
the case of noncompetitive contracts awarded on the basis of 
urgent and compelling needs, the documents would have to be 
posted within 30 days. The Competition in Contracting Act 
(Public Law 98-369) already requires that such justification 
and approval documents be made available for inspection by the 
public, subject to the exemptions from public disclosure 
provided in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    Section 824--Disclosure of Government Contractor Audit Findings

    This section would require the head of each federal agency 
or department, in the case of the Department of Defense, the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics, to submit quarterly reports to Congress on completed 
audits of contractors performed by the agency or department. 
Such reports would describe contractor costs in excess of $10.0 
million that a completed audit identified as unjustified, 
unsupported, questioned, or unreasonable. This section would 
also require such reports to list completed audits identifying 
material performance deficiencies of a contractor or a 
contractor business system.
    This section would also require the head of each federal 
agency or department to provide, within 14 days after a request 
in writing by the chairman or ranking member of the House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the 
Senate Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on 
Appropriations, and in the case of audits performed by the 
Department of Defense or the Department of Energy, the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services, and the committees of primary jurisdiction, a full 
and unredacted copy of any completed audit referenced in a 
quarterly report. This section would require such a copy to 
identify information exempt from public disclosure under the 
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
    The committee does not intend this section to alter current 
procedures, formats, or findings of completed audits. The 
committee seeks to create a mechanism to make Congress aware of 
major audit findings, while also seeking to minimize the 
administrative burden of the requirement. In particular, this 
section requires only the transmission of audits that have been 
completed, and does not extend to interim audit findings. Also, 
the committee expects that the lists of audits will focus on 
those audits which specifically evaluate the legitimacy of 
contractor cost claims and contract performance evaluations. 
The committee expects that this will consist of completed 
incurred-cost audits and audits of policies, procedures, and 
internal controls relative to accounting and management 
systems. Such a report should only include completed audits 
that document material findings of noncompliance with disclosed 
or established practices, cost accounting standards, or the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation, or material performance 
deficiencies.
    The committee notes that the threshold for reporting audit 
findings relating to contractor costs was established to ensure 
that issues of significance and material importance would be 
brought to the attention of Congress. The committee expects 
that agency heads will not modify or subdivide contracts or 
task orders in order to remain below the threshold of this 
provision, and expects that audit agencies will continue to 
review contracts according to the audit procedures established 
by the Comptroller General.

              Section 825--Study of Acquisition Workforce

    This section would require the Administrator of the Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy to conduct a study of the 
composition, scope, and functions of the government-wide 
acquisition workforce and develop a comprehensive definition 
of, and method of measuring the size of, such workforce.
    This section would also require the Administrator for 
Federal Procurement Policy to submit a report on the results of 
the study, along with findings and recommendations, to the 
relevant congressional committees, no later than one year after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

                    Section 826--Report to Congress

    This section would require the Director of the Office of 
Government Ethics to submit a report to Congress 180 days after 
the enactment of this Act that contains the Director's 
recommendation on whether federally funded research and 
development centers and contractors who advise the government 
on procurement policy should comply with the personal financial 
interest requirements that apply to federal employees.

                    Subtitle D--Contractor Provision


    Section 831--Memorandum of Understanding on Matters Relating to 
                              Contracting

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense, 
the Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID) sign a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding matters relating to 
contracting for contracts in Iraq or Afghanistan. The MOU would 
clarify the roles and responsibilities of the two departments 
and USAID in managing and overseeing contracts including 
tracking and overseeing contractor personnel and maintaining a 
common database on such contracts. The MOU would assign 
responsibility for oversight of contractors carrying weapons 
and the collection and referral of any information relating to 
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Chapter 47 
of title 10, United States Code) and the Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (Chapter 212 of title 18, 
United States Code). This section would require the submission 
of the MOU to the relevant committees of Congress. This section 
would also prohibit the award of any new contracts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan after January 1, 2008, until the MOU is signed and 
the Department or agency concerned has initiated use of the 
common database unless the President waives the restriction.

Section 832--Comptroller General Reviews and Reports on Contracting in 
                          Iraq and Afghanistan

    This section would require that the Comptroller General 
review contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan every six months, 
starting on March 1, 2008, and continuing through March 1, 
2010, and report on the review to the relevant committees of 
Congress. The report would include information on:
          (1) The total number of contracts awarded during the 
        reporting period;
          (2) The total number of active contracts;
          (3) The total value of all contracts awarded during 
        the reporting period;
          (4) The total value of active contracts;
          (5) The total number of contractor personnel;
          (6) The total number of contractor personnel 
        providing security;
          (7) The categories of activities undertaken;
          (8) The extent to which such contracts have used 
        competitive procedures;
          (9) The extent to which such contracts achieved their 
        requirements;
          (10) The effect of costs for security on such 
        contracts and the effects of contracting for security 
        rather than using government provided security; and
          (11) Any information on contracts that raise issues 
        of significant concern.
    This section would also require that the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of State provide the Comptroller 
General with full access to information on contracts in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.

                        Section 833--Definitions

    This section would define three terms for purposes of this 
subtitle. The term ``matters relating to contracting'' would 
mean all matters relating to awarding, funding, managing, 
tracking, monitoring, and providing oversight to contracts and 
contractor personnel. The term ``contracts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan'' would mean a contract with the Department of 
Defense, the Department of State, or the United States Agency 
for International Development, a subcontract at any tier issued 
under such a contract, or a task order at any tier issued under 
such a contract, if the contract, subcontract, or task order 
involves work performed in Iraq or Afghanistan for a period 
longer than 14 days. The term ``relevant committees of 
Congress'' would mean the Committee on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives.

Section 834--Competition for Equipment Supplied to Iraq and Afghanistan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure the use of competitive procedures in the procurement of 
pistols for the Iraqi Security Forces consistent with the 
provisions of section 2304 of title 10, United State Code.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


  Section 841--Rapid Commercial Information Technology Identification 
                         Demonstration Project

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
create a three-year demonstration project to identify, assess, 
leverage, and acquire commercial information technology (IT) 
systems for military applications. The demonstration project 
would develop a process to rapidly assess and establish 
priorities for DOD IT requirements while balancing the needs of 
the combatant commands, DOD capabilities, and innovative 
solutions offered by the private sector. This section would 
authorize $10.0 million for the demonstration.

 Section 842--Report to Congress Required on Delays in Major Phases of 
  Acquisition Process for Major Automated Information System Programs

    This section would establish a permanent reporting 
requirement for the Secretary of Defense and would require the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, to notify the congressional defense committees 
within 30 days when automated information systems programs 
experience a delay in specific phases of the acquisition cycle. 
This section would allow one full year to develop an official 
analysis of alternatives, 18 months to proceed from Milestone A 
and Milestone B, and six months for the approval of a 
capability development document before triggering a reporting 
requirement. This section would further require an explanation 
for each delay, a reassessment of cost estimates, and a 
certification of the wisdom for a continuation of the program.

Section 843--Requirement for Licensing of Certain Military Designations 
    and Likenesses of Weapons Systems to Toy and Hobby Manufacturers

    This section would amend section 2260 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Department of Defense to license 
trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective 
marks relating to the military designation and likenesses of 
military weapons systems to domestic companies that are toy and 
hobby manufacturers, distributors, or merchants. The fee 
charged for a license would be no more than required to cover 
the cost to the government, and the license would be non-
exclusive.

  Section 844--Change in Grounds for Waiver of Limitation on Service 
             Contract to Acquire Military Flight Simulator

    This section would amend section 832 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) to allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the 
prohibition against entering into a service contract to acquire 
a military flight simulator if granting such a waiver was in 
the national interest of the United States. Under section 832, 
the Secretary can only grant such a waiver if it is necessary 
for national security purposes.

 Section 845--Evaluation of Cost of Compliance with Requirement to Buy 
                 Certain Articles from American Sources

    This section would require that costs related to compliance 
with the limitations on the acquisition of items covered under 
sections 2533a and 2533b of title 10, United States Code, be 
excluded from consideration in the evaluation of bid offers. 
Specifically, this section would apply to the use of 
noncompliant materials based on the exceptions provided for 
reciprocal access agreements with foreign countries.

   Section 846--Requirements Relating to Waivers of Certain Domestic 
                           Source Limitations

    This section would require that certain processes be 
followed in making domestic non-availability determinations 
(DNADs) under the authority to waive limitations on the 
acquisition of items containing specialty metals under section 
2533b of title 10, United States Code. In the case of waivers 
affecting multiple prime contracts, this section would require 
that DNADs be issued pursuant to a formal rulemaking process, 
be limited to the duration of the non-availability of the 
specialty metals concerned, and continue to require an 
accounting of non-compliant specialty metals purchased under 
such contracts. In the case of waivers affecting a single prime 
contract, this section would require the Secretary of Defense 
make available, to the maximum extent possible, information 
used by the Department of Defense in making the DNADs. 
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure that an accounting of non-compliant specialty 
metals purchased under the contract is made.

             Section 847--Multiple Cost Threshold Breaches

    This section would require that each military department, 
each defense agency, each defense field activity, and each 
combatant command managing a major defense acquisition program 
track the number of such programs experiencing excessive cost 
growth. For purposes of this section, excessive cost growth 
would be increases in cost in excess of the thresholds 
established in section 2433 of title 10, United States Code, 
and section 945 of this Act. This section would also require 
that any military department, defense agency, defense field 
activity, or combatant command managing more than two major 
defense acquisition programs that are experiencing excessive 
cost growth provide a report to the Secretary of Defense within 
90 days of the end of the fiscal year, outlining any systemic 
deficiencies in its acquisition policies or practices and 
outlining possible corrections. This section would further 
require that the Secretary of Defense provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees containing a description of 
the excessive cost growth reported under this section and an 
assessment of the corrective actions proposed within 120 days 
of the end of the fiscal year.

                        Section 848--Phone Cards

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure that new contracts for morale, welfare and recreation 
telephone service for personnel serving in combat zones are 
awarded using competitive procedures and that the contract 
proposals include options that minimize the cost of phone 
services to individual users while providing users the 
flexibility of using phone cards from phone service providers 
other than the entity offering the proposal. The section would 
also require that the Secretary of Defense, when considering an 
extension of existing contracts for such phone services, 
examine, with the contractor, the potential to further reduce 
the cost of services to service members by allowing the use of 
phone cards from phone service providers other than the 
contractor.

  Section 849--Jurisdiction under Contract Disputes Act of 1978 over 
    Claims, Disputes, and Appeals Arising out of Maritime Contracts

    This section would amend section 603 of title 41, United 
States Code, to extend the coverage of the Contract Disputes 
Act of 1978 (41 USC 601-613) to maritime contracts.

    Section 850--Clarification of Jurisdiction of the United States 
    District Courts to Hear Bid Protest Disputes Involving Maritime 
                               Contracts

    This section would clarify that any actions arising out of 
a maritime contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the 
U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and shall not be heard in a U.S. 
District Court under the Suits in Admiralty Act (chapter 309 of 
title 46 USC) or the Public Vessels Act (chapter 311 of title 
46 USC).

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


 Acquisition Management and Joint Operations of Unmanned Aerial Systems

    On April 19, 2007, the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
held a hearing, which highlighted the different views of the 
military services on the efficacy of designating an executive 
agent for the Department of Defense for medium- and high-
altitude unmanned aerial systems (UASs).
    The Department of the Air Force believes that the 
appointment of an executive agent for medium- and high-altitude 
UASs would achieve efficiencies in acquisition and enhance 
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) interoperability by providing 
common architectures for data links and radios. Further, the 
Air Force contends that in order to make the best use of 
limited operational resources, all medium- and high-altitude 
UAVs assigned to Operation Iraqi Freedom, regardless of 
service, should be available to the Coalition Forces Air 
Component Commander for tasking to the highest operational 
priority at any given time.
    The other military services believe that the status quo 
better serves the Department of Defense. The Army contends that 
giving up the operational control of any of its UASs would 
expose its commanders at the tactical level to additional risk. 
They also argue that this would sever the feedback loop between 
training and development of UASs and feedback from Army 
operators.
    The committee believes that this issue has not been 
adequately addressed for the past two years, potentially 
resulting in waste of limited resources and inefficient 
operational use of high value, limited UAS assets. The 
committee further believes that there may be potential benefits 
to a single service being given authorities and 
responsibilities as an executive agent to guide the 
Department's acquisition efforts to include research, 
development, testing and evaluation activities; procurement; 
logistics; and training. This could serve to reduce or 
eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort; enhance 
interoperability by directing standard architectures, data-
links, radios, ground control stations; and achieve commonality 
with existing ISR processing, exploitation and dissemination 
systems.
    Furthermore, the committee notes that Subtitle E of Title 
IX of this bill would require the Secretary of Defense to 
review the roles and missions of the Department of Defense. In 
conducting the review, the subtitle requires the Secretary to 
define the core mission areas of the Department, to identify 
the core competencies of the military departments, the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense, each Defense Agency, each Field 
Agency, and each of the combatant commands with acquisition 
authority, as associated with each defined core mission area. 
The committee firmly believes that if the core competencies of 
the military services were clearly articulated and the 
requirements system were aligned with such competencies, as 
required in Subtitle E, that unintended duplication of effort, 
inoperability issues, and disagreements over authority for 
operational control of medium- and high-altitude UASs could be 
mitigated.
    Therefore, pending full implementation of Subtitle E across 
the department, the committee directs the Secretary to complete 
a review of UAS-related capabilities in accordance with 
subsections 943(a) and (b) of Title IX of this bill. This 
review shall determine whether the designation of a military 
department as executive agent for UAS for the Department of 
Defense would serve as the best means of eliminating 
unnecessary duplication of effort; enhancing interoperability 
by directing standardized architectures, data-links, radios, 
and ground control stations; and achieving commonality with 
existing ISR processing, exploitation, and dissemination 
systems. Finally, this review shall also ensure that a clear, 
objective assessment be included of operational risk to each 
military service as a result of changes proposed by the Air 
Force Chief of Staff in a March 5, 2007 memorandum to the 
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, combatant commanders, and 
chiefs of other military services on designation of the 
Department of the Air Force as executive agent for medium- and 
high-altitude UAS. A report on this review shall be provided to 
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2008.
    Nothing included herein or in Subsection E of Title IX of 
this bill is intended to restrict in any way the current 
authority of the Secretary of Defense to appoint an Executive 
Agent for medium- and high-altitude unmanned aerial systems 
pending the outcome of the reports required by this bill and 
report on roles and missions.

                     Defense Policy Reorganization

    In section 901 of the conference report (H. Rept. 109-702) 
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007, the conferees outlined several 
significant concerns about the long-term impact of the 
reorganization of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy (OUSD(P)) on the effective development, 
implementation, and review of national defense policies. These 
concerns included the possible implications of this 
reorganization on important policy areas such as special 
operations and low-intensity conflict, strategic capabilities, 
and combating weapons of mass destruction.
    The committee understands that the intent behind the 
OUSD(P) reorganization was to balance the various geographical 
and functional areas of responsibility among the five Assistant 
Secretaries of Defense (ASDs) within OUSD(P) and that this re-
balancing would allow those ASDs to interact more effectively 
with other national security officials and address more 
effectively the full range of current and emerging national 
security challenges. However, the committee has not received 
sufficient assurances that OUSD(P) officials are adequately 
addressing the issues reflected in the conference report. For 
example, the committee believes that the placement of 
responsibility for ``strategic capabilities'' and ``force 
transformation'' policies within the ASD for Special Operations 
and Low-Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities may 
dilute that ASD's statutory responsibility to supervise special 
operations and low-intensity activities, including oversight of 
related policies and resources in this critical area. It is 
unclear how OUSD(P) is mitigating, or is planning to mitigate, 
that risk.
    The committee continues to expect that Department officials 
will consult frequently and openly with the congressional 
defense committees as they implement, review, and adjust, as 
necessary, this reorganization of a major Under Secretariat. 
OUSD(P) officials should make every effort to consider 
seriously the input of these committees and provide sufficient 
feedback to ensure that the committees remain informed as the 
reorganization moves forward.

              Full Spectrum Analysis on Irregular Warfare

    The committee recognizes that the nation must be prepared 
for both conventional and unconventional threats and that 
violent extremist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, often resort 
to irregular warfare to engage the U.S. through asymmetric and 
indirect approaches. Additionally, the committee recognizes 
that Special Operations Forces (SOF) represent the Department's 
premier capability to counter such unconventional threats.
    Accordingly, the committee commends the recommendation 
contained in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to 
increase U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) and supports the 
plan of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to increase 
total active duty personnel endstrength by more than 24 
percent, or 11,000, between fiscal years 2007 and 2013. The 
committee strongly supports SOCOM's plan to add to the force 
five Special Forces (SF) battalions, three civil affairs (CA) 
battalions and five companies focused on psychological 
operations (PSYOP). The committee recognizes such growth as 
essential for improving unconventional warfare capabilities 
within the SOF community, consonant with a concomitant increase 
of CA and PSYOP units in the U.S. Army Reserve. The committee 
views the growth in and emphasis on SF, PSYOP and CA as 
necessary to improve SOCOM's capability to conduct 
unconventional warfare and encourages further effort in this 
area. In addition, the committee recognizes that conventional 
forces have been called upon to operate outside of their 
traditional conventional missions as they contribute to 
combating these unconventional threats.
    The committee remains ultimately concerned about the long-
term sustainment of the Department's ability to conduct 
irregular warfare operations that often require an ``indirect'' 
or ``non-kinetic'' approach. These techniques require a mature, 
highly skilled and well-educated force to achieve success, and 
SOF, specifically formed to provide such a force, will continue 
to be the Department's primary unconventional force. Across the 
Department, stable long-term resource allocations are required 
to produce such a capability but the existence of an 
innovative, flexible personnel management system is also 
necessary. The requirements of unconventional warfare and COIN 
campaigns are unique. Fundamentally, their success often relies 
upon individual judgment at the small unit level by operators 
familiar with specific locations, indigenous communities and 
their unique and residential customs. Such requirements place a 
premium on the importance of recruiting, developing, and 
promoting individuals familiar with and best suited for the 
sensitivities of such missions.
    To support and promote an effective irregular warfare 
capability, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
Department of Defense's (DOD's) plan to address the unique 
needs of irregular warfare. The report shall include but not be 
limited to:
          (1) An assessment of the respective manning level 
        rates at indirect action units within SOCOM as compared 
        with the manning levels at units primarily engaged in 
        the discipline of direct action;
          (2) An assessment of how conventional units are being 
        trained in and are conducting irregular warfare 
        missions such as counterinsurgency;
          (3) A description of the conventional force in the 
        future and how it is expected to address the unique 
        needs of irregular warfare missions;
          (4) An assessment of the adequacy of DOD's personnel 
        management programs in developing and supporting 
        irregular warfare capabilities, and an explanation of 
        SOCOM's role in monitoring and influencing the 
        professional development and accession of both 
        commissioned and non-commissioned special operators 
        throughout the SOF community;
          (5) Recommended legal, regulatory, and policy changes 
        to improve personnel management programs to better 
        support irregular warfare;
          (6) The consideration of specific guidance to 
        promotion and command screening boards to encourage a 
        balance in the selection of individuals who have both 
        conventional and unconventional backgrounds, or in the 
        case of SOF, who come from ``indirect'' and ``direct'' 
        action units; and
          (7) An assessment of alternative organizational 
        structures that could best provide an unconventional 
        warfare capability within the Department and an 
        assessment of how SOCOM can best ensure a balanced 
        approach in the allocation of resources between the 
        respective disciplines of direct and indirect action.
    This report shall be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2008.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management


  Section 901--Additional Requirements Relating to the Limitation on 
     Major Department of Defense Headquarters Activities Personnel

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
annually update the definition of major headquarters activities 
in the budget submission to Congress with the new definition 
that would take effect January 1 of the following year. This 
section would also allow a service secretary to waive the 
limitation on headquarters personnel if the secretary certifies 
to the Secretary of Defense that such a waiver is necessary to 
eliminate a contract for services in order to reduce costs or 
to bring back into the government a position that carries out 
inherently governmental functions.
    Section 130a of title 10, United States Code, limits the 
number of personnel assigned to major Department of Defense 
(DOD) headquarters activities to 85 percent of the number 
assigned to those headquarters activities on October 1, 1999, 
and further defines those activities by referencing a DOD 
directive. The Department has requested a revision to section 
130a of title 10, United States Code, to allow for greater 
flexibility in defining major DOD headquarter activities and 
for relief from the limits on headquarters personnel to allow 
some outsourced positions to be brought back into the 
government. The committee shares the goal of reducing the 
reliance on outsourcing for inherently governmental functions, 
and agrees that some updating of the definition of major 
headquarters activities may be appropriate.

  Section 902--Flexibility to Adjust the Number of Deputy Chiefs and 
                            Assistant Chiefs

    This section would provide the secretaries of the military 
departments with greater flexibility to determine the number of 
Deputy Chiefs of Staff or, in the case of the Navy, Deputy 
Chiefs of Naval Operations, and Assistant Chiefs of Staff or, 
in the case of the Navy, Assistant Chiefs of Naval Operations. 
The total number of positions for each service would not exceed 
eight.

  Section 903--Change in Eligibility Requirements for Appointment to 
               Department of Defense Leadership Positions

    This section would reduce the period of time before a 
commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force 
must wait after relief from active duty to become eligible for 
appointment to the position of Secretary of Defense, Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy from ten years to five.

     Section 904--Revisions in Functions and Activities of Special 
                           Operations Command

    This section would modify the authorities governing U.S. 
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to accurately reflect 
current mission requirements. This section would codify SOCOM's 
responsibility for the synchronization of DOD efforts to combat 
terrorists and associated alliances. This section would further 
revise the statute governing special operations activities, 
place greater emphasis on unconventional warfare techniques and 
missions, and require the Commander, U.S. Special Operations 
Command, to assess the abilities of the special operations 
community to meet the demands of unconventional warfare. 
Finally, this section would establish a reporting requirement 
detailing and providing an assessment of DOD personnel 
management programs as they relate to the unique needs of the 
SOCOM community.

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

    This section would designate the Department of the Navy as 
the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps and change the 
title of its Secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine 
Corps. This section 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.

      Section 906--Management System of the Department of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
assign duties relating to the strategic oversight of all 
significant management issues of the Department of Defense to a 
senior official of a rank not lower than an Under Secretary of 
Defense. This section would also require that the Secretary 
adopt a management structure for the Department of Defense, 
including business support areas, which supports the essential 
management goals of the Department. This section would also 
require the Secretary to establish essential management goals 
for the Department, including, at a minimum, a comprehensive 
business transformation plan; a well-defined enterprise-wide 
business systems architecture; and financial statements that 
receive clean audit opinions during independent financial 
audits. This section would further require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services a report, within 90 days 
of the enactment of this Act, on the implementation of this 
section.

     Section 907--Acquisition Parity for Special Operations Command

    This section would modify existing law to eliminate the 
requirement that the acquisition programs of U.S. Special 
Operations Command support the acquisition priorities of the 
respective military services. This section would further modify 
the consultation requirement to ensure that the DOD senior 
acquisition official takes steps to encourage the heads of 
defense agencies to support the priorities of the respective 
military departments.

         Section 908--Department of Defense Board of Actuaries

    This section would repeal section 1464 of title 10, United 
States Code, in its entirety as well as subsection (e) of 
section 2006. It would streamline advice provided to the 
Secretary of Defense and his other senior advisors by 
consolidating the Department of Defense Retirement Board of 
Actuaries and the Department of Defense Education Benefits 
Board of Actuaries into the Department of Defense Board of 
Actuaries. This section also would consolidate the authorities 
to appoint and remove future members of the Board with the 
President, rather than divide those authorities between the 
Secretary and the President.

                      Subtitle B--Space Activities


           Section 911--Space Protection Policy and Strategy

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an analysis and assessment of current and future space 
situational awareness and space protection requirements and 
capabilities and to report that strategy to the congressional 
defense committees by March 15, 2008, and every other year 
thereafter.
    The committee is concerned that space situational awareness 
and the protection of U.S. space assets have not received 
adequate emphasis in the past. The Chinese anti-satellite test 
in early 2007 highlighted the vulnerability of our space 
assets, but represents only one of a range of threats to our 
nation's space capabilities. The committee believes further 
information about current and future needs is required to guide 
efforts to strengthen our ability to deter, deny, and recover 
from various possible attacks to U.S. space assets.

 Section 912--Biennial Report on Management of Space Cadre Within the 
                         Department of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report every two years on the management of the cadre 
of space professionals within the Department of Defense.
    The committee commends existing space professional 
development efforts within the military departments, to include 
increased education and training opportunities, establishment 
of space-related specialty codes, and development of personnel 
databases. However, a September 2006 Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) report found that management actions are needed to 
better identify, track, and train Air Force space personnel. 
Without an assessment of space cadre requirements and the 
development and use of metrics, the committee believes it will 
be difficult to track progress in ensuring the Department has 
sufficient numbers of personnel with the expertise, training, 
and experience to meet current and future national security 
space needs and understand the impact to space acquisition and 
operations resulting from the Air Force reduction of 65,000 
personnel from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009.

             Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Program


  Section 921--Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Commission

    This section would modify existing law to allow a Chemical 
Demilitarization Citizens' Advisory Commission to remain in 
existence, at the discretion of the Governor of the State, 
until after all closure activities are completed at a chemical 
agent destruction facility pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act, as amended. The extension of authority included in this 
section would accommodate communities concerned with additional 
remediation or regulatory work still required at 
demilitarization sites after the destruction of the stockpiles. 
This section would also include a technical amendment to 
reflect the proper office of responsibility within the 
Department of the Army for serving as the Army's representative 
to the commissions.

 Section 922--Sense of Congress on Completion of Destruction of United 
                   States Chemical Weapons Stockpile

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Department of Defense should continue with its plan for on-site 
disposal of the assembled chemical weapons alternative (ASWA)-
managed stockpiles located at Pueblo Chemical Depot, CO, and 
Blue Grass Army Depot, KY, and ensure that extensive 
consultation and notification processes exist between 
representatives of the Department and representatives of the 
relevant States and local communities.

                Subtitle D--Intelligence Related Matters


          Section 931--Reports on Foreign Language Proficiency

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and 
secretaries of the military departments to assess and submit an 
annual report on the foreign language capacity and capabilities 
of the Department of Defense. This section would reaffirm 
concerns about the management of linguists in the armed forces 
expressed by the committee in previous legislation and would 
build upon the report required by section 581 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), which the committee notes it has not yet received. The 
committee recognizes work by the Department to improve and 
define language requirements for present and future operations 
and requires additional information to assess progress in 
improving foreign language capacity and capabilities within the 
Department.
    The committee expects the Secretary of Defense and 
secretaries of the military departments will use a table format 
in its annual reports to ensure consistency in data reporting. 
This section would require the Department to report on 14 
specific metrics which are explained in further detail below. 
The Secretary may also recommend elimination of language-
related reporting that is duplicative of this requirement.
    (1) Organization--separately identify each branch of the 
armed services and other elements of the Department of Defense 
that maintain foreign language competencies.
    (2) Language--identify specific language requirements, 
including specific dialect requirements.
    (3) For each organization and language and specific dialect 
identified, include--
          (a) Billets Authorized.
          (b) Requirement Current Year--number of billets 
        required in the current fiscal year.
          (c) Requirement 1-5 years--number of billets for each 
        of the five years after the current year.
          (d) On Board--actual number of linguists regardless 
        of their current billet.
          (e) Using Language--number of linguists filling a 
        language billet in that language and dialect.
          (f) Not Using Language--number of linguists whose 
        primary duty is not language-related.
          (g) Qualification Level--number of personnel at each 
        level of proficiency based on the Interagency Language 
        Roundtable Guidelines (ILRG). Include number of 
        personnel within each category for each language or 
        dialect (ILRG levels 1 through 5). Annotate separately 
        if this meets the needs of each organization.
          (h) Unqualified--number of linguists who are unable 
        to perform duties as a linguist
          (i) Accessions during the past year.
          (j) Departures during the past year.
    (1) Allies--percentage of language requirements fulfilled 
by allies. Annotate separately if this meets the needs of each 
organization.
    (2) Contractors--percentage of language requirements 
fulfilled by private contractor personnel. Annotate separately 
if this meets the needs of each organization.

  Section 932--Technical Amendments to Title 10, United States Code, 
    Arising from Enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
                         Prevention Act of 2004

    This section would amend 16 provisions in title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify whether the prior reference to the 
``Director of Central Intelligence'' should be considered as a 
reference to ``Director of National Intelligence'' or 
``Director of Central Intelligence Agency.'' The Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 separated the 
responsibilities and authorities of these positions and this 
section would clarify the assignments.

                Subtitle E--Roles and Missions Analysis


  Section 941--Analysis and Organization of Roles and Missions of the 
                         Department of Defense

    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
require that a review of the roles and mission of the 
Department of Defense be performed every four years. The review 
would be performed by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and would be 
required to organize the missions of the Department into core 
mission areas such as dominance of ground, air, maritime and 
space environments, expeditionary warfare, mobility, homeland 
defense, and cyber operations. This section would require the 
Secretary to submit a report on each review to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by the date that the budget request for the next 
fiscal year is submitted. The first review would be performed 
during 2008. This section would repeal a superseded requirement 
that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff perform a roles 
and mission analysis as a part of the Quadrennial Defense 
Review required by section 118 of title 10, United States Code.

   Section 942--Identification of Core Competencies of the Military 
    Departments and Other Entities within the Department of Defense

    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
require that the Secretary of Defense identify the core 
competencies of the military departments, the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, each defense agency, and each defense 
field activity. This section would require that each core 
competency be clearly associated with a core mission area of 
the Department of Defense. The section would require the 
Secretary complete identification of the core competencies and 
submit a report on this matter by January 1, 2009.

  Section 943--Review of Capabilities of the Military Departments and 
          Other Entities within the Department of the Defense

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense 
conduct a review of the capabilities that each of the military 
departments, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, each 
defense agency, and each defense field activity is maintaining 
or developing. This review would determine whether these 
capabilities are outside of each entity's core competencies or 
of the core mission areas of the Department of Defense, and 
would have to establish a justification, if any, for 
duplication of capabilities. This review would also determine 
whether any core competencies required to effectively perform 
the core mission areas of the Department are not being 
maintained or developed. This section would require the review 
to be completed by June 1, 2009, and would prohibit the start 
pf any new major defense acquisition program after June 1, 
2009, until the review has been submitted to the House 
Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services.

  Section 944--Joint Requirements Oversight Council Additional Duties 
                     Relating to Core Mission Areas

    This section would amend section 181 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council (JROC) to organize its review of requirements according 
to the core mission areas established by the Secretary of 
Defense by June 1, 2009, and to complete the organization of 
previously approved requirements documents according to the 
capability portfolio structure by October 1, 2009.
    This section would clarify the necessity for the JROC to 
provide the military services with clear guidance on the 
priority assigned to each requirement and on the expected 
resources allocated to fulfill such a requirement. Accordingly, 
this section would add the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary 
of Defense (Comptroller) as permanent members of the JROC to 
help the council provide this guidance. This section would 
require the JROC to organize its review of requirements by core 
mission area and would stipulate that the officer or official 
assigned to lead the review of a core mission area must be of a 
different military department than the deputy for that core 
mission area. This section would also make explicit the 
responsibility of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 
ensure the effective coordination of military requirements.
    The committee is concerned that the current requirements 
process is too insulated from the realities of the acquisition 
and budget processes to produce requirements that most 
efficiently guide the expenditure of the Department of 
Defense's resources. By incorporating clear priorities and 
budget guidance into the JROC process, this section would 
ensure that decisions made in these areas are truly joint, and 
are not driven primarily by the military department's budget 
considerations. This section would also define the term ``joint 
military requirement'' for purposes of this section to clarify 
that the purpose of the JROC's review of requirements is to 
establish the capabilities required to perform the core mission 
areas of the Department, rather than the specific performance 
characteristics of a weapon system.

 Section 945--Requirement for Certification of Major Systems Prior to 
                         Technology Development

    This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to 
require that the major systems of the Department of Defense be 
certified by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) 
prior to the start of technology development. This section 
would require the JROC to certify and affirm that the system 
fulfills an approved initial capabilities document, that the 
system is being executed by an entity with a relevant core 
competency, and that a cost estimate for the system has been 
submitted that is consistent with the level of resources 
associated with the relevant initial capabilities document. 
This section would also require that if, at any time prior to 
Milestone B, the system experienced cost growth of more than 25 
percent of the cost estimate submitted to the JROC at the time 
of certification, the system would be returned to the JROC for 
a decision on whether to terminate or continue the system.

   Section 946--Presentation of Future-Years Mission Budget by Core 
                              Mission Area

    This section would amend section 222 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require that the future-years mission budget of 
the Department of Defense be organized by core mission area. 
This section would also require that the future-years mission 
budget be submitted at the same time as the future-years 
defense program. This section would be effective starting with 
the fiscal year 2010 budget.

Section 947--Future Capability Planning by Joint Requirements Oversight 
                                Council

    This section would amend title 10, United State Code, to 
require the Secretary of Defense, within 90 days of enactment 
of this Act, to prepare an extended planning annex for each 
operational and contingency plan of the Department of Defense. 
These extended planning annexes would include an assessment of 
the capabilities needed to successfully accomplish the missions 
for which the plans were created. The assessment would be 
required biannually, or any time the plans of the Department 
are substantially changed, and would require a time-phased 
capability assessment using a 15-year planning horizon. This 
section would also require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, to 
assess the ability of fielded systems and existing science and 
technology efforts to meet the capability requirements 
established by the extended planning annexes.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


 Section 951--Department of Defense Consideration of Effect of Climate 
      Change on Department Facilities, Capabilities, and Missions

    This section would require the next National Security 
Strategy and the next National Defense Strategy to include 
appropriate guidance to military planners to assess the risks 
of projected climate change to current and future missions, 
guidance for updating defense plans based on these assessments, 
and capabilities needed to reduce future impacts. Further, this 
section would require the next Quadrennial Defense Review to 
examine the capabilities of the U.S. military to respond to the 
consequences of climate change, in particular, preparedness for 
natural disasters from extreme weather events and other 
missions the U.S. military may be asked to support both at home 
and abroad.
    The committee believes that the strategic, social, 
political, and economic consequences of global climate change 
are likely to result in increased instability in some parts of 
the world. Further, the committee believes that a failure to 
recognize, plan for, and mitigate the geopolitical effects of a 
changing climate will have an adverse impact on the national 
security interests of the United States.

              Section 952--Interagency Policy Coordination

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan to appoint either the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy or another official to be the lead official in the 
Department of Defense for improving and reforming the 
interagency coordination process on national security. The 
duties of the official, if named by the Secretary, would 
include leading Department of Defense efforts to develop policy 
affecting the interagency process, advocating for greater 
interagency coordination and contributions in the execution of 
the National Security Strategy, serving as the Department of 
Defense representative at U.S. Government forums concerned with 
interagency policy, making recommendations as to changes in 
laws or regulations to enhance the ability of the Department of 
Defense to work better with other agencies, serving as the 
coordinator for planning and training assistance designed to 
enhance the interagency process and that is supplied by the 
Department of Defense to other agencies, and serving as the 
lead official in the Department of Defense for the development 
of joint interagency task forces. The section would also 
require that the official named submit an annual report to 
Congress on the actions taken by the Department of Defense to 
enhance interagency coordination, the views of the Department 
of Defense on challenges to improving interagency coordination, 
and suggestions as to changes in law or regulation that would 
enhance the interagency process.
    Over the past several years, the committee has undertaken 
several initiatives to enhance interagency coordination on 
national security matters, this section being only the latest. 
The committee has been generally pleased that officials of the 
Department of Defense have recognized that other agencies of 
the U.S. Government can make important contributions to the 
national security and to ongoing operations and that those 
officials have become strong advocates for reforming the 
national security interagency process. The committee is 
disappointed, however, that other agencies of the U.S. 
Government have not shared this recognition, and that others 
involved in the national security interagency process have not 
reciprocated the efforts of the committee and the Department of 
Defense. The committee notes with concern the Administration's 
failure to deliver the report on improving interagency support 
for security, stabilization, transition, and reconstruction 
efforts that was mandated by section 1035 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) by the April 1, 2007, deadline in that 
legislation.

     Section 953--Expansion of Employment Creditable Under Service 
          Agreements Under National Security Education Program

    This section would create an additional option in a 
position in the field of education for participants in the 
National Security Education Program to fulfill their service 
obligation for those who cannot secure other federal employment 
in accordance with the current provisions of the program.

       Section 954--Study of National Security Interagency System

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
enter into an agreement with an independent, nonpartisan, 
nonprofit organization to undertake a year-long study of the 
national security interagency system and to make suggestions 
about reforming that process. The section authorizes the use of 
up to $4.0 million for this purpose.
    The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense has 
expressed interest in undertaking a study like the one 
described above, but has hesitated to enter into such an 
agreement without the agreement of other cabinet secretaries. 
The committee supports the Secretary of Defense's efforts to 
interest his colleagues in the cabinet in reforming the 
national security interagency process. The committee hopes that 
the secretaries of other agencies of the U.S. Government that 
are involved in national security will support the effort 
authorized by this section both with their full and complete 
cooperation and, if necessary, with financial assistance. The 
Department of Defense has much to gain from reforming and 
improving the national security interagency process, but so do 
other agencies and the nation as a whole, and other agencies 
will hopefully recognize this and act accordingly.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                        Counter-Drug Activities


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $936.8 million for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $193.3 
million, for operational tempo, which is contained within the 
operating budgets of the military services. The budget is 
organized in fiscal year 2008 to address four broad national 
priorities: (1) international support; (2) domestic support; 
(3) intelligence and technology; and (4) demand reduction.
    The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 
2008 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows 
(in millions of U.S. dollars):

FY08 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request...............    $936.8
International Support.........................................    $431.5
Domestic Support..............................................    $206.2
Intelligence Technology and Other Demand Reduction............    $162.9
Demand Reduction..............................................    $136.2
Recommended Decreases
    International Support.....................................     $12.0
Recommended Increases
    Southwestern Border Fence.................................      $8.0
    Airborne Counter-Narcotics/Terrorism Threat Protection....      $4.0
Recommendation................................................    $936.8

                       Items of Special Interest


Budget Requests

    The budget request contained $936.8 million for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities, including all 
counter-drug resources in the Department of Defense (DOD) with 
the exception of those resources in the operating budget for 
the military services and those resources which are 
appropriated or requested in emergency budgets. For fiscal year 
2007 alone, the committee notes that counter-drug activities in 
Afghanistan and Central Asia will be funded with at least $63.6 
million, which was appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 
Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234) and remains 
unexpended. The fiscal year 2007 budget request for ongoing 
military operations contained an additional $259.1 million for 
counter-drug efforts in Afghanistan, Central Asia, and other 
countries, and an additional $257.6 million was contained in 
the fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations, both of which were presented this year to Congress. 
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2008 budget request 
represents the fourth year of emergency budget requests for 
counter-drug activities in Afghanistan and the rest of Central 
Asia without the inclusion of any funding for these activities 
in a regular budget request.

International Support

    The budget request contained $431.5 million for 
international support. The committee understands the importance 
of international support and notes that this request for 
international support will result in increased operational 
support for all four military services. This support includes 
detection and monitoring platforms and assets; command and 
control support; and the training, equipment, and supplies 
intended for other nations that are key to the U.S. national 
drug strategy and defense security cooperation goals.
    The committee recommends $419.5 million, a decrease of 
$12.0 million, for international support. The committee notes 
that this small decrease will not result in diminished 
activities as the international support program continues to 
receive funding from emergency budget requests. The budget 
requests for ongoing military operations contained an 
additional $259.1 million for fiscal year 2007 and $257.6 
million for fiscal year 2008 to support counter-drug activities 
in other countries.
    The committee is particularly concerned about the level of 
counter-drug support for the Colombian military. In March, 
2007, the Department of State reported that some former members 
of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a foreign 
terrorist organization, continue to engage in drug trafficking. 
There are also increasingly troubling reports of collusion 
between a number of Colombian military units and senior 
officers and elements of the United Self-Defense Forces of 
Colombia.

Southwest Border Fence

    The committee remains concerned that the southwest border 
with Mexico continues to be a major corridor for drug and human 
smuggling. The committee understands that since 1990, when the 
Department of Defense became involved in addressing the heavily 
used smuggling corridor in San Diego, California, by 
implementing physical barriers throughout the region, drug 
``drive-throughs'' have been eliminated. The number of 
apprehensions of unauthorized migrants has diminished greatly 
as the infrastructure matured into an effective law enforcement 
tool. The committee believes that border infrastructure is a 
force multiplier, which allows counter-drug assets and 
personnel to be more effectively employed.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for 
drug interdiction and counter-drug activities to continue the 
work on the 14-mile Border Infrastructure System near San 
Diego, California, and to construct at least 10 miles of double 
fencing at the Marine Corps Station in Yuma, Arizona.

Airborne Counter-Narcotics/Terrorism Threat Protection System

    The committee notes that the Federal Bureau of 
Investigations (FBI) operates aircraft with operational ``hot'' 
spare electro-optic infrared turret systems as a means of 
detecting, identifying, and monitoring suspected narcotics-
traffickers and terrorists nationwide. Additional funding would 
enable the FBI to purchase operational sparing, return non-
operational systems to operational status quickly, and, 
thereby, minimize the downtime of a critical asset. Additional 
funding would also permit the FBI to conduct performance 
upgrades to allow for greater standoff range to, and accuracy 
on, target.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 
domestic support of detection and interdiction of illicit 
narcotics trafficking throughout the United States.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters


                Section 1001--General Transfer Authority

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to make 
transfers between any amounts of authorizations for fiscal year 
2008 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the 
total amount of transferred under this authority to $4.5 
billion. This section would also require prompt notification to 
Congress of each transfer made. This section would prohibit 
funds from being transferred out of an account of the National 
Guard or other reserve components of the armed forces to a 
different account other than another account of the National 
Guard or other reserve component.

Section 1002--United States Contribution to NATO Common-Funded Budgets 
                          in Fiscal Year 2008

    This section would authorize the United States contribution 
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization common-funded budgets 
for fiscal year 2008, including the use of unexpended balances.

          Subtitle B--Policy Relating to Vessels and Shipyards


      Section 1011--Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels

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

Section 1012--Policy Relating to Major Combatant Vessels of the Strike 
                    Forces of the United States Navy

    This section would require that all new ship classes of 
submarines, cruisers, and aircraft carriers be built with 
nuclear power systems unless the Secretary of Defense notifies 
the committee that it is not in the national interest to do so.
    The committee believes that the mobility, endurance, and 
electric power generation capability of nuclear powered 
warships is essential to the next generation of Navy cruisers. 
The Navy's report to Congress on alternative propulsion methods 
for surface combatants and amphibious warfare ships, required 
by section 130 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), indicated that the total 
lifecycle cost for medium-sized nuclear surface combatants is 
equivalent to conventionally powered ships. The committee notes 
that this study only compared acquisition and maintenance costs 
and did not analyze the increased speed and endurance 
capability of nuclear powered vessels.
    The committee believes that the primary escort vessels for 
the Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers should have the same 
speed and endurance capability as the aircraft carrier. The 
committee also notes that surface combatants with nuclear 
propulsion systems would be more capable during independent 
operations because there would be no need for underway fuel 
replenishment.

                  Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities


 Section 1021--Extension of Authority for Joint Task Forces to Provide 
   Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counter-Terrorism 
                               Activities

    This section would extend the authority provided in section 
1022b of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004 (Public Law 108-136), which expires at the end of fiscal 
year 2007, through fiscal year 2008. The current authority 
provides that a joint task force of the Department of Defense, 
which is providing support to law enforcement agencies 
conducting counter-drug activities, may also provide, subject 
to all applicable laws and regulations, these law enforcement 
agencies with support for their counter-terrorism activities.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


Section 1031--Extension and Modification of Report Relating to Hardened 
                       and Deeply Buried Targets

    This section would extend by six years the requirement for 
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the 
Director of Central Intelligence to submit jointly a report on 
the research and development, procurement, and other activities 
undertaken to develop military capabilities to defeat hardened 
and deeply buried targets to the congressional defense 
committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and 
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Further, 
this section would change the reporting requirement from 
annually to biennially, and would require that the report 
include activities of the preceding two fiscal years, as well 
as provide a plan for the current fiscal year and the next 
fiscal year. This section would change the signatory from the 
Director of Central Intelligence to the Director of National 
Intelligence.

   Section 1032--Comptroller General Review of the Joint Improvised 
                  Explosive Device Defeat Organization

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
conduct a review of the activities and operations of the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO).
    The committee recognizes that improvised explosive devices 
(IEDs) continue to be a primary cause of casualties for U.S. 
armed forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. The committee supports the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) efforts to defeat these lethal threats. To date, the 
Congress has provided over $6.0 billion for JIEDDO, which was 
created by the Deputy Secretary of Defense to lead, advocate, 
and coordinate all DOD actions to defeat IEDs. The committee 
believes that JIEDDO has demonstrated marginal success in 
achieving its stated mission to eliminate the IED as a weapon 
of strategic influence. The committee understands that this is 
a complex and difficult mission, but the committee has not had 
sufficient insight into JIEDDO's efforts to determine if 
adequate effort is being applied to the full spectrum of tasks 
required to defeat the IED.
    The committee intends to work with the Comptroller General 
to define the scope and focus of the review. This section would 
require the Comptroller General to submit a report summarizing 
the findings of this review to the congressional defense 
committees within 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

   Section 1033--Report on a National Joint Modeling and Simulation 
                          Development Strategy

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report within nine months after the enactment of this 
Act to the congressional defense committees that would provide 
for the development and implementation of a joint modeling and 
simulation concept to support the full spectrum of Department 
of Defense modeling and simulation requirements and that 
outlines a plan that details the Department's modeling and 
simulation coordination efforts.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Section 1041--Enhancement of Corrosion Control and Prevention Functions 
                    Within the Department of Defense

    This section would amend section 2228 of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide for a permanent Director of the Office 
of Corrosion Policy and Oversight as an independent activity 
within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(ATL)). This section 
would establish qualifications for the Director, assign duties, 
and provide additional authorities. It also would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit with the annual fiscal-year 
budget request a report detailing the long-term strategy 
developed under section 2228(c) of title 10, United States 
Code, the return on investment achieved by implementing the 
strategy, and an explanation of the funding request versus 
funding requirement. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
would be required to review the Secretary's report within 60 
days of submission.
    Section 1067 of the Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) 
required the Department of Defense to establish a corrosion 
prevention and mitigation program. Five years later, the 
Department has made limited progress toward implementing a 
corrosion prevention strategy and applying policy across the 
Department, according to the GAO. The Corrosion Office was 
established in 2003 as an independent activity within the 
Office of the USD(ATL), reporting directly to the Corrosion 
Executive. However, the Corrosion Office is now situated in the 
Systems and Software Engineering Directorate, three layers 
removed from the statutorily mandated Corrosion Executive.
    The committee is aware that the Office of Corrosion Policy 
and Oversight has achieved a significant level of technical 
progress. However, the committee remains concerned about the 
Department's commitment to the Corrosion Prevention and Control 
(CPAC) program. The fiscal year 2008 budget request contained 
$14.0 million allocated toward a problem that costs the 
Department $10.0 billion in documented corrosion. In light of 
the $3.6 billion lifecycle cost avoidance achieved by the CPAC 
program's efforts and a 49.6-to-1 return on investment, the 
Department appears to be missing an opportunity for greater 
corrosion prevention and mitigation. By giving the Director 
direct reporting authority to the USD(ATL) and assigning the 
Director the duties specified in section 2228 of title 10, 
United States Code, the committee anticipates progress toward 
achieving the policy, funding and savings goals envisioned in 
section 1067 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314).

 Section 1042--Support by National Guard for National Special Security 
         Events and Other Critical National Security Activities

    This section would authorize federal departments to provide 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense in cases when 
National Guard personnel are deployed under the authority of 
title 32, United States Code, in support of National Special 
Security Events and other activities determined significant by 
the Secretary of Defense. Such deployments shall be in support 
and at the request of civil authorities, as well as approved by 
the Secretary of Defense.

 Section 1043--Improved Authority To Provide Rewards for Assistance in 
                          Combating Terrorism

    This section would amend section 127b of title 10, United 
States Code, to increase the size of payments allowed under the 
Department of Defense combating terrorism rewards program and 
provide new authority for U.S. Government personnel to provide 
rewards through government personnel of coalition or partnered 
nations. Consistent with existing authority, such payments 
would be authorized to a person who provides information or 
nonlethal assistance directly or indirectly to the forces of 
the United States. Such third-party payments would be 
authorized only if the Secretary of Defense has instituted 
procedures for such activities, including accountability 
measures for such transactions. This section would require a 
report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 
2008, on the use of the expanded authority it would provide, 
and would require annual reporting requirements.

        Section 1044--Revision of Proficiency Flying Definition

    This section would provide a definition of ``proficiency 
flying.'' This section also would allow the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to cancel outdated guidance on flying proficiency 
and its related elements for participating rated personnel. 
Current DOD policy on flying proficiency is now included in 
Department of Defense Instruction 7730.57, ``Aviation Career 
Incentives Act of 1974 and Required Annual Report'' (July 18, 
2003).

   Section 1045--Support for Non-Federal Development and Testing of 
                  Material for Chemical Agent Defense

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to provide small quantities of toxic chemicals or 
precursors to private industry for the development and testing 
of materials designed to be used for protective purposes.

Section 1046--Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the 
                             United States

    This section would repeal section 1051 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163); establish a new, congressionally appointed, bipartisan 
commission to examine the strategic posture of the United 
States; and authorize $5.0 million for the commission's 
activities.
    The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2001 raised fundamental 
questions about U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and the committee 
believes that there is an urgent need for a debate over the 
role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategic posture. The 
committee notes that although the Administration has proposed 
renewed development of nuclear warheads, it has not articulated 
its views on the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategic 
posture since issuance of the NPR. The committee believes clear 
policy objectives should be established before Congress commits 
to ambitious new programs.
    This section would charge the commission with examining the 
role of deterrence in the 21st century, assessing the role of 
nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy, and making 
recommendations as to the most appropriate strategic posture 
for the United States. This section would require the 
commission to submit a report to the President, the Secretary 
of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of State, 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and the House Committee 
on Armed Services by December 1, 2008.

            Section 1047--Technical and Clerical Amendments

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

           Section 1048--Repeal of Certification Requirements

    This section would repeal section 1063 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
183). This would reaffirm state procurement authority over the 
Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission, University Park, 
Illinois, and would remove restrictive representation 
requirements consistent with the Illinois Attorney General's 
opinion File #05-010, dated December 16, 2005.

Section 1049--Prohibition on Sale by Department of Defense of Parts for 
                         F-14 Fighter Aircraft

    This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from 
selling F-14 parts to any entity other than a museum or similar 
organization in the United States acquiring the parts to 
preserve aircraft for historical purposes. This section would 
also prohibit the granting of an export license for any F-14 
part.

    Section 1050--Maintenance of Capability for Space-Based Nuclear 
                               Detection

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
maintain, at a minimum, the current space-based nuclear 
detection capability in the future planning for national space 
systems. The committee notes that the Air Force was considering 
removing the national nuclear detection system payload from a 
future satellite development. This future satellite system will 
replace the existing satellite system that carries the nuclear 
detection capability. The committee strongly supports the need 
for space-based nuclear detection, and this section would 
require the Department of Defense to maintain it, at least at 
the current capability, in the future.

  Section 1051--Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 
                                 Teams

    This section would modify existing authority governing the 
overall number of national guard civil support teams (CSTs), 
increasing from 55 to 57 the total number of teams. This 
section would modify section 1403 of the Bob Stump National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-
314) and would authorize an additional team in Florida and New 
York.

  Section 1052--Sense of Congress Regarding Need To Replace Army M109 
                     155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer

    This section would express a sense of Congress that the 
Army should replace the M109 artillery system with the Non-
Line-of-Sight Cannon system.

 Section 1053--Sense of Congress Regarding Detainees at Naval Station, 
                          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    This section would express the sense of Congress that:
          (1) The Nation extends its gratitude to the military 
        personnel who guard and interrogate some of the world's 
        most dangerous men every day at Naval Station, 
        Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
          (2) The international community, in general, and in 
        particular, the home countries of the detainees who 
        remain in detention despite having been ordered 
        released by a Department of Defense administrative 
        review board, should work with the Department of 
        Defense to facilitate and expedite the repatriation of 
        such detainees;
          (3) Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, to the maximum 
        extent possible, should be charged and expeditiously 
        prosecuted for crimes committed against the United 
        States; and
          (4) Operations at Guantanamo Bay should be carried 
        out in a way that upholds the national interest and 
        core values of the American people.

 Section 1054--Repeal of Provisions in Section 1076 of Public Law 109-
    364 Relating to Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies

    This section would amend section 333 of title 10, United 
States Code, and essentially repeal recent modifications to 
that section, as contained in section 1076 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364). This section would reverse the expansion of 
executive authority granted in Public Law 109-364 with respect 
to the employment of active and reserve military personnel 
during domestic response incidents. This section would return 
to state governors ultimate law enforcement authority in the 
wake of public, natural, or terrorist-related domestic 
emergencies.

                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Incentives for Deployed Civilians

    The Department of Defense (DOD) provides various special 
pay and benefits to its deployed federal civilian personnel 
(including non-appropriated fund instrumentality employees), 
which differ in type and/or amount from those provided to 
deployed military personnel. A September, 2006, General 
Accountability Office report (GAO-06-1085) highlighted these 
special provisions, which include post differential, and danger 
pay. While federal civilian employees are entitled also to 
premium pay, they do not receive a family separation allowance 
and a combat zone tax exclusion as do deployed military service 
members. The committee is aware that attracting federal 
civilian personnel to deploy in contingency operations may be 
difficult at a time when DOD personnel are undertaking a range 
of critical missions in support of ongoing military operations. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 
benefits available to deployed federal civilian personnel to 
determine if such benefits provide adequate incentives to 
encourage federal civilian personnel to volunteer for a 
deployed position. This review shall also encompass a 
discussion of survivor benefits, to include matters related to 
the life insurance coverage, as well as relocation allowances 
for families of federal civilian personnel who die while 
deployed in support of military forces. The committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report of the findings, 
along with recommendations including any necessary statutory 
changes, to the congressional defense committees by March 30, 
2008.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters


   Section 1101--Compensation for Federal Wage System Employees for 
                          Certain Travel Hours

    This section would authorize compensation for hours spent 
traveling back from an administratively uncontrollable event 
for Federal Wage System (FWS) employees who are exempt from the 
overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 
of 1938 in sections 201-219 of title 29, United States Code. 
This change would provide for the same treatment of General 
Schedule and FWS employees when they make the same trip.
    Section 5544 of title 5, United States Code, addresses 
circumstances under which wage board employees who are exempt 
from the FLSA are paid overtime. Under section 5544, an 
employee who must travel in order to perform work that cannot 
be scheduled or controlled administratively is paid for time 
spent traveling to the temporary duty station to perform the 
work. Time spent traveling from the temporary duty station back 
to the official duty station is not compensated because the 
return leg of the journey can be scheduled or controlled 
administratively. However, return travel often is not scheduled 
during working hours because some of the flights are not 
scheduled frequently and some parts of the world to which these 
employees must travel do not have adequate facilities for 
overnight stays. This section would make both the trip to the 
temporary duty station and the return trip compensable.

   Section 1102--Special Benefits for Civilian Employees Assigned on 
                 Deployment Temporary Change of Station

    This section would amend subchapter II of title 5, United 
States Code, to add a new section to authorize that civilians 
be provided billeting, rations, and storage of a personal 
vehicle during an extended contingency operations deployment. 
The ongoing contingency operations have necessitated longer 
deployments for Department of Defense civilian employees. To 
support these contingency operations, the Department has sent 
its civilian employees on temporary duty (TDY) for up to 180 
days. When the contingency deployments are for greater periods 
of time than 180 days, civilian employees deploy on temporary 
change of station (TCS). When an employee deploys on TCS, the 
employee's pay and allowances are no longer determined on the 
basis of the employee's permanent duty station. As a result, 
employees who previously deployed to areas of contingency 
operations on TDY lose entitlement to certain payments and 
allowances. This change would ensure no loss of these payments 
and allowances.

  Section 1103--Accumulation of Annual Leave by Senior Level Employees

    This section would allow senior-level employees, defined as 
those who are classified above the GS-15 level, to receive the 
same flexible annual leave accrual currently authorized for 
members of the Senior Executive Service, the Defense 
Intelligence Senior Executive Service, and certain other senior 
government officials.

       Section 1104--Travel Compensation for Wage Grade Personnel

    This section would amend section 5550b of title 5, United 
States Code, to allow Prevailing Rate employees to receive 
compensatory time off for each hour spent on official travel 
which is not otherwise compensable. This change would provide 
for the same treatment of General Schedule and Prevailing Rate 
employees for overtime pay related to official travel.

     Section 1105--Death Gratuity Authorized for Federal Employees

    This section would provide a death gratuity of $0.1 million 
to Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employees who died as a 
result of wounds, injuries, or illness while on duty in a 
combat zone or from a terrorist incident. This section would 
apply retroactively in the case of a DOD civilian employee 
whose death occurred on or after October 7, 2001, from wounds, 
injuries, or illness incurred in the performance of their duty 
in the theater of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 
Freedom. Section 664 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) increased the death 
gratuity payable to military members from $12,000 to $0.1 
million. This section would provide a similar benefit to DOD 
civilians whose death is directly the result of their 
deployment to a combat zone.
    DOD civilian employees perform essential functions in 
combat zones, and may face many of the same risks as their 
military colleagues. Death benefits for such employees are 
currently limited to $10,000, including funeral and burial 
costs. The committee believes that, as a matter of equity, DOD 
civilian and military personnel should be entitled to 
comparable benefits in the case of death as a result of 
accepting assignment in combat areas.

  Section 1106-Modifications to the National Security Personnel System

    This section would amend section 9902 of title 5, United 
States Code, to restore employee collective bargaining rights, 
a performance appraisal system, and access to an appeals 
process that have long been part of the civil service system, 
but are not available to individuals currently participating in 
the Department of Defense National Security Personnel System 
(NSPS). This section also would guarantee veterans' preference 
in hiring, as well as when the agency undertakes a reduction-
in-force action. Finally, this section would add procedural 
safeguards for pay for performance and would extend the 
exemption from NSPS to defense laboratories until 2011.
    The committee is concerned that the implementing 
regulations, issued in November, 2005, exceeded congressional 
intent, especially with respect to limitations on employee 
bargaining rights. Furthermore, the committee notes that the 
Government Accountability Office issued several reports 
highlighting areas of concern, including the need for the 
Department to better define elements of the system, and made 
recommendations for continuing employee involvement in the 
implementation process. In addition, at a March, 2007, hearing 
of the Subcommittee on Readiness, several witnesses raised 
issues related to implementing the NSPS pay-for-performance 
system.
    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
implement a modified NSPS pay-for-performance system that 
complies with many of the procedures provided in section 4703 
of title 5, United States Code. That section establishes 
guidelines for civilian personnel demonstration projects. The 
committee notes that use of demonstration program authorities 
in title 5, United States Code, have been a successful model at 
Department of Defense laboratories for providing flexibility in 
personnel systems, while protecting employee rights. Thus, as 
recommended by the committee, for employees to be included in a 
pay-for-performance system, an agreement must be negotiated 
between the Department and the employees' exclusive 
representatives. In addition, the modified NSPS pay-for-
performance system would guarantee that employees continue to 
receive their annual nationwide and locality adjustments. The 
committee makes this recommendation out of concern that under 
the current implementing regulations for NSPS, it is possible 
for employees to receive a bonus, but not receive a nationwide 
or locality adjustment. Such a practice affects the employee's 
base pay, which is used for calculating retirement benefits.

                 Section 1107--Annuity Commencing Dates

    This section would allow federal retirement annuities to 
commence on either the day after retirement or the day after 
age and service requirements are met. The current deviations in 
annuity commencement dates between retirement systems results 
in a cumbersome administrative human resources problem. The 
committee believes this change would resolve that problem.

Section 1108--Flexibility in Setting Pay for Employees Who Move From a 
       Department of Defense or Coast Guard Nonappropriated Fund 
    Instrumentality to a Position in the General Schedule Pay System

    This section would authorize an employee of a Department of 
Defense or U.S. Coast Guard nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality to voluntarily transfer, without a break in 
service of more than three days, to a federal civil service 
appropriated fund position at the lowest pay step within the 
appropriate grade that equals or exceeds the employee's 
previous pay level. This section would also establish the 
employee's new pay level as the maximum rate in the appropriate 
grade if the employee's previous rate of pay exceeds that pay 
level.

   Section 1109--Transportation of Dependents, Household Effects and 
 Personal Property to Former Home Following Death of Federal Employee 
 Where Death Resulted from Disease or Injury Incurred in a Combat Zone

    This section would allow the dependents of a federal 
civilian employee who dies while on deployment in a combat zone 
to be relocated to their home of record at the government's 
expense, whether the dependents are living overseas or in the 
continental United States. Current law, section 5742 of title 
5, United States Code, makes the payment of such expenses 
available only to those dependents living overseas or in 
Alaska. This section would expand the eligibility to dependents 
living in the continental United States if the federal civilian 
employee died as a result of disease or injury while working in 
a combat zone. This section would apply only to federal 
civilian employees who have signed an emergency mobility 
agreement.

Section 1110--Use of Leave Transfer Program by Wounded Veterans Who are 
                           Federal Employees

    This section would amend section 6333 of title 5, United 
States Code, to allow federal employees, who sustain a combat-
related injury while on active duty, in both the National Guard 
or the Reserves, to accept donated leave without having to 
deplete their own leave allocations. The section would allow 
employees to accept donated leave while undergoing medical 
treatment for the disability, but in no case for more than five 
years.

    Section 1111--Requirement for Full Implementation of Personnel 
                         Demonstration Project

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
fully utilize and implement the authorities provided under 
section 342 (Extension and Expansion of Authority to Conduct 
Personnel Demonstration Projects) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) to 
carry out flexible personnel demonstration projects at 
Department of Defense laboratories exempt from the National 
Security Personnel System (NSPS) by section 9902(c) of title 5, 
United States Code. This section would also allow other defense 
laboratories to utilize the authorities granted by section 342 
and would exempt them from NSPS. The section would require an 
annual report from the Department on the demonstration 
projects.

              TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


      Accuracy of Tracking Personnel Data on Iraqi Security Forces

    The committee is concerned about the lack of accurate 
personnel accountability data and reporting procedures for the 
Iraqi Security Forces (both Ministry of Defense and Ministry of 
Interior forces.) For example, according to the Department of 
Defense, ``there are currently no reliable data to indicate how 
many'' of the initial 188,300 Objective Civil Security Force 
(OCSF) are still serving with the Ministry of Interior. 
Accurate data regarding who is serving in the Iraqi Security 
Forces, whether they have been adequately trained, where they 
are assigned, and whether they continue to serve is essential 
to measuring and reporting the progress of the Iraqi Security 
Forces. The committee directs that, within 90 days of enactment 
of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, for the duration of 
the Iraqi training mission, the Secretary of Defense report to 
the congressional defense committees (1) what type of personnel 
accountability data is available for the Iraqi Security Forces, 
including information regarding the hiring, training, and 
assignment, of security personnel and present-for-duty rates; 
(2) what the source of that information is, and how it is 
updated; and (3) what measures are being implemented by the 
Department of Defense, in partnership with the Government of 
Iraq, to address any gaps in personnel accountability and 
reporting for the Iraqi Security Forces. The committee directs 
that this reporting requirement shall terminate upon 
certification by the Secretary of Defense to the congressional 
defense committees that US forces have completed their 
training, equipping, and support mission, as it pertains to the 
Iraqi Security Forces.

Contributions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's International 
   Security Assistance Force to Security and Stability in Afghanistan

    The committee emphasizes that countries participating in 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) International 
Security Assistances Force (ISAF) must significantly increase 
their contributions to security and stability in Afghanistan, 
including contributions to the following: military operations 
by increasing troop numbers and removing restrictive national 
caveats that limit operations; efforts to strengthen the 
resources, capabilities, and effectiveness of the Afghanistan 
National Security Forces' (ANSF) capacity-building; counter-
narcotics efforts; and reconstruction and development.
    The committee notes that in response to the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, NATO countries contributing to 
ISAF invoked Article 5 of NATO's founding charter, which 
committed these countries to collective defense. Since that 
time, NATO-ISAF countries have made numerous commitments at 
NATO summits in Prague, Czech Republic, 2002; in Istanbul, 
Turkey, 2004; and in Riga, Spain, 2006, to contribute to 
Afghanistan's security and stability. However, many of these 
commitments remain unfulfilled. The committee believes that 
although some NATO-ISAF countries have made important 
contributions in Afghanistan, and the military forces of some 
NATO-ISAF countries have been involved in heavy combat and 
endured losses, NATO-ISAF countries must do much more to ensure 
sustainable long-term progress in Afghanistan, and to achieve a 
more equitable burden-sharing arrangement among these 
countries. This is not only critical to security and stability 
in Afghanistan but to the future of the NATO alliance.
    The committee also believes that the United States must 
strengthen its efforts to increase contributions from NATO-ISAF 
countries to security and stability in Afghanistan. The 
committee strongly encourages efforts including: (1) effective 
U.S. leadership, policy direction, and coordination for all 
relevant U.S. activities; (2) an inter-agency review of 
commitments and contributions from NATO-ISAF countries, 
including contributions to military operations, ANSF capacity-
building, counter-narcotics efforts, and reconstruction and 
development; (3) regular bilateral and multilateral 
consultations with governments of NATO-ISAF countries on 
commitments and contributions; and (4) measures and mechanisms 
for increasing contributions from NATO-ISAF countries, and for 
achieving a more equitable burden-sharing arrangement among 
NATO-ISAF countries for such contributions.

                          Iraqi WMD Scientists

    The committee notes that although stocks of recently 
manufactured Weapons of Mass Destruction were not discovered in 
the wake of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq did maintain research 
and development activities on chemical, biological, and nuclear 
weapons. The committee is concerned that the scientists and 
technical experts who participated in these activities may have 
left Iraq and could be contributing to the weapons programs of 
other countries or entities. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Defense, to submit a classified report within 180 
days of enactment of this Act, including the location and 
employment status of those scientists and technical personnel 
critical to the Iraqi research programs, the efforts made to 
locate those critical personnel whose location and status are 
currently unknown, and any efforts undertaken by the Department 
of Defense to encourage weapons scientists and technical 
personnel to remain in Iraq and work on behalf of the people 
and Government of Iraq. The report shall also include an 
assessment of any proliferation risk posed by the Iraqi 
scientific and technical personnel, particularly those who 
cannot be located.

 Report on Certain Cooperative Activities Involving the United States 
                               and India

    The committee notes that given the President's proposed 
deepening of U.S.-India nuclear cooperation, in the committee 
report (H. Report 109-452) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the committee directed 
the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of 
Defense and Secretary of State, to submit to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed 
Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, by February 1, 2007, a 
report on the Department of Energy's (DOE's) current and 
planned cooperative activities involving the United States and 
India to enhance India's export control system and nuclear 
safeguards and to prevent theft or other illicit transfer of 
nuclear materials and technologies. The committee specified 
that the report shall also describe how the Department of 
Energy coordinates these U.S.-India nuclear safeguards 
activities with similar efforts of the Department of Defense 
and the Department of State; provide an assessment of the 
limits and vulnerabilities in India's current export control 
system and other safeguards as they relate to nuclear 
materials; and identify possible areas for expanded U.S.-India 
nuclear safeguards activities.
    On April 18, 2007, DOE's Deputy Administrator for Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation delivered a letter to the committee 
regarding this report. The letter conveys that although the 
Department of Energy is undertaking certain U.S.-India nuclear 
safeguards activities, such activities are limited and still 
evolving. Although the committee appreciates DOE's 
correspondence, it is not a substitute for the required report. 
The committee emphasizes the importance of this report given 
the recent enactment of the Henry J. Hyde United States and 
India Nuclear Cooperation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-401) that 
the President signed into law on December 18, 2006, and the 
steps required by Congress under this law before any such 
cooperation may occur. The committee expects that the report 
will be delivered to the relevant committees at the earliest 
possible date.

             Report on Combatant Commanders Initiative Fund

    Over the past several years, Department of Defense 
officials have repeatedly requested authority for the 
Department to respond to urgent and unanticipated humanitarian 
relief and reconstruction requirements in developing countries 
where U.S. forces are operating. Those officials have argued 
that the Commanders' Emergency Response Program, which is a 
temporary program that allows U.S. military commanders in 
Afghanistan and Iraq to provide for such requirements, would be 
a useful tool for all combatant commanders, regardless of 
geography.
    The committee notes that Congress provided authority for 
the Commanders' Emergency Response Program specifically for the 
special circumstances within Afghanistan and Iraq and 
highlights that the Department already has several legislative 
authorities, which would allow military commanders to address 
the needs of local populations in nations in which U.S. forces 
are operating. For example, both Chapter 20 and section 2561 of 
title 10, United States Code, provide the Department with 
significant authority to provide humanitarian, civic, and other 
assistance to foreign countries. The codified language does not 
impose unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles to the timely use of 
these authorities.
    The committee also highlights that section 166a of title 
10, United States Code, outlines authority for a Combatant 
Commanders Initiative Fund. This authority allows the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs to Staff to provide funds to combatant 
commanders for a range of activities, including ``humanitarian 
and civic assistance (to include urgent and unanticipated 
humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements.)'' Again, 
the codified language does not impose unnecessary bureaucratic 
obstacles to the timely use of this authority. In the 
conference report (H. Rept. 109-702), which accompanied the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007, the conferees urged the Department of Defense to develop 
guidance for the use of this authority to ensure that military 
commanders could use it quickly and without bureaucratic delay 
in urgent situations.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit, 
by February 1, 2008, a report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the 
guidance and procedures in place at the Department of Defense 
to implement that Combatant Commanders Initiative Fund 
authority. In addition to describing the bureaucratic 
processes, this report shall also identify the activities 
conducted under this authority during fiscal years 2006 and 
2007, the political-military and military objectives of those 
activities, and any related future activities that may build 
upon those activities. The report shall also include a 
description of how the Department of Defense is ensuring that 
commanders on the ground have sufficient access to these funds 
in urgent, unanticipated situations.

   Report on Feasibility and Advisability of a Stability Operations 
                           Fellowship Program

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2007, on the 
feasibility and advisability of establishing and carrying out a 
program to pay any costs associated with the education and 
training in stability operations of foreign military officers 
and other foreign defense and security officials from a 
developing country at military or civilian educational 
institutions, regional centers, conferences, seminars, or other 
training programs, including costs of transportation and travel 
and subsistence costs. For purposes of this report, the term 
``stability operations'' means military and civilian activities 
conducted to maintain or re-establish a safe and secure 
environment and to provide essential governmental services, 
emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian 
relief.
    The report shall include the following:
          (1) An overview of the proposed scope of the 
        envisioned program.
          (2) A description of the target audience of foreign 
        military and civilian officials to participate in the 
        program.
          (3) An explanation of how the program would relate to 
        other Department of Defense international training and 
        education programs, including the Regional Defense 
        Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program and the Regional 
        Centers for Security Studies Program.
          (4) An evaluation of how the program could complement 
        rather than duplicate existing Department of State 
        authorities, including ``International Military 
        Education and Training'' and ``Foreign Military 
        Financing'' program authorities.
          (5) A description of how the Department of Defense 
        would structure policy oversight and management of the 
        program, including coordination with the Department of 
        State with respect to human rights vetting.
          (6) An estimation of the annual costs to implement 
        the program and an assessment of the return on 
        investment in the program for the United States 
        Government, geographic combatant commanders, and United 
        States military forces.

                  Report on Use of Liaison Authorities

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services a report by March 1, 2008, providing an 
assessment of the implementation of section 1051a of title 10, 
United States Code. That assessment shall include a statement 
of the cost to the Department of Defense of the use of the 
authority provided by that section, and a summary of activities 
carried out under the authority provided by that section, 
including the number of liaison officers for whom 
administrative services and support or expenses were provided 
under that authority and their countries of origin, and the 
type of services, support, and expenses provided.

                      Train and Equip Authorities

    Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) required the President to 
submit to Congress a report on the ability of the Department of 
Defense (DOD) and the Department of State (DOS) to conduct 
foreign military assistance programs. The committee expresses 
strong concern that Congress has not yet received that report, 
which was due by January 6, 2007. Moreover, Congress has not 
received any official indication that this required report will 
be forthcoming any time soon.
    In recent years, the committee has considered the tasks 
associated with building the military capacity and capabilities 
of foreign partners. This is an area which has historically 
been a DOS responsibility and in which the Department of 
Defense has expressed strong interest. As a result of this 
interest, Congress provided the Department of Defense with 
limited authority to conduct programs to train and equip 
foreign military forces, while continuing to encourage the 
Department of State to develop or modify the resident 
capability to handle some of these tasks.
    Collectively, these authorities are referred to by the 
general term ``train and equip'' and are exemplified by section 
1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 (Public Law 109-163) and section 1206 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364). As stated clearly in the conference reports (H. 
Rept. 109-360 and H. Rept. 109-702) accompanying these laws, 
the intent of these authorities was to provide the basis of a 
pilot program, the results of which Congress would take under 
advisement when considering extending or expanding ``train and 
equip'' authorities in the future.
    Additionally, Congress recognized that there appeared to be 
vulnerabilities in existing laws relating to foreign military 
assistance, including but not limited to the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195) and the Arms Export Control Act 
(22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq). This recognition was an additional 
underlying reason behind the requirement for the Presidential 
report. The accompanying conference report (H. Rept. 109-360) 
noted that this report would be ``an important factor in the 
conferees' future consideration of'' any future DOD authority 
to provide foreign assistance.
    In the last two years, Congress has clearly and strongly 
discouraged further legislative proposals to expand or make 
permanent DOD's ``train and equip'' authorities in the absence 
of this required report and an established track record of 
success. The committee has serious concerns that the 
Administration has not heeded this advice and, in failing to 
comply with existing law, has deprived the committee of the 
full materials needed to make an informed judgment on the 
longer-term future of those proposals.

United States' Contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-
              led International Security Assistance Force

    The committee recognizes that most U.S. forces deploying to 
Afghanistan do so as an important part of U.S. voluntary 
national contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO)-led International Security Assistance Force 
(ISAF-X). The committee further recognizes that U.S. Joint 
Forces Command has developed advanced capabilities, including 
innovative technologies that may enhance battle management, 
command and control, intelligence analysis, and communications. 
Many of these capabilities would be useful to the U.S. forces 
assigned to the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, including 
modeling and simulation tools and the ability to conduct 
Operational Net Assessments. The committee urges the Secretary 
of Defense, to the maximum extent practicable, provide these 
sorts of capabilities as part of U.S. contributions to the 
NATO-led force in Afghanistan. Furthermore, to ensure fielded 
forces sustain these capabilities, appropriate training support 
should be made available, on a temporary basis, as required by 
the Commander, ISAF-X.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training


 Section 1201--Military-to-Military Contacts and Comparable Activities

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive 
the reciprocity requirements for personnel exchange programs 
with foreign governments when it is in the interests of the 
United States.

 Section 1202--Authority for Support of Military Operations to Combat 
                               Terrorism

    This section would authorize an extension of existing 
authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide to foreign 
forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals a total amount 
of $25.0 million in each fiscal year through 2010 when such 
recipients are facilitating or acting in support of operations 
conducted by U.S. Special Operations Forces. To address 
committee concerns about past reporting practices associated 
with this program, this section would include a requirement for 
more detail in the annual overview and would require the 
Secretary to submit the report to the congressional defense 
subcommittees within 120 days of the end of each fiscal year. 
The committee expects the annual review to include specific 
detail on cost and performance of each activity as well as a 
clear reference to each event approved during the preceding 
fiscal year. This section would not constitute authority to 
conduct any covert action.

   Section 1203--Medical Care and Temporary Duty Travel Expenses for 
              Liaison Officers of Certain Foreign Nations

    This section would provide authority for the Secretary of 
Defense to pay medical expenses incurred by a liaison officer 
from a developing country who is temporarily assigned to a 
headquarters of a combatant command, component command, or 
subordinate operational command in connection with the planning 
for, or conduct of, a military operation. This authority would 
only be available if the developing country has not entered 
into a reciprocal health care agreement with the Department of 
Defense. This section would also authorize the Secretary to pay 
a liaison officer's temporary duty expenses when the liaison 
officer is temporarily assigned to the headquarters of a 
combatant command, component command, or subordinate 
operational command, and is requested by the commander to 
travel in support of the United States. In addition, this 
section would expand the category of liaison officers covered 
by the statute to include liaison officers from nations 
involved in military operations with the United States and 
assigned to combatant commands, component commands, or 
subordinate operational commands of the United States in 
connection with the planning for, or conduct of, such military 
operations. Finally, this section would make permanent the 
Secretary's authority to pay the expenses of the covered 
liaison officers supporting United States military operations.

    Section 1204--Extension and Expansion of Department of Defense 
     Authority to Participate in Multinational Military Centers of 
                               Excellence

    This section would extend the authority granted by section 
1205 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) for an additional year, 
through fiscal year 2008, for the Secretary of Defense to enter 
into agreements with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
alliance members, major non-NATO allies, and other friendly 
foreign countries to participate in organizations that are 
centers of excellence established to enhance interoperability, 
develop military doctrine, and develop and test new concepts. 
This section also would clarify that the centers of excellence 
do not have to be approved and accredited by NATO, and it would 
increase the authorization for expenditures for the U.S. share 
of operating expenses from $3.0 million to $5.0 million.

Section 1205--Reauthorization of Commanders' Emergency Response Program

    This section would amend subsection (a) of section 1202 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3455-3456) to extend the 
Commanders' Emergency Response Program through fiscal year 
2009.

  Section 1206--Expansion of Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign 
      Military Forces to Include Pakistan's Other Security Forces

    This section would amend the authority of the Secretary of 
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to 
require programs building the capacity of foreign military 
forces to include certain other security forces of the country 
of Pakistan, when those forces would be used specifically for 
counter-terrorism operations, and subject to a 30-day 
congressional notification requirement. This authority was 
first provided under section 1206 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
extended in section 1206 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).

  Section 1207--Authority To Provide Assistance to Foreign Nations To 
Assist in Recovery and Accounting Activities for Missing United States 
                          Government Personnel

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
provide equipment, supplies, services, training, and funding to 
foreign nations to allow them to assist the U.S. Government to 
recover the remains of U.S. personnel.

Section 1208--Authority to Provide Automatic Identification System Data 
      on Maritime Shipping to Foreign Countries and International 
                             Organizations

    This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to 
authorize the secretaries of the military departments and the 
combatant commanders to provide foreign nations and 
international organizations with information on the location of 
merchant vessels.

Section 1209--Report on Foreign Assistance-Related Programs, Projects, 
        and Activities Carried out by the Department of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to Congress a report describing all the foreign 
assistance-related programs, projects, and activities carried 
out by the Department of Defense during the prior fiscal year. 
This report would be submitted within 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.

                  Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq


   Section 1221--Modification of Authorities Relating to the Special 
               Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction

    This section would extend the responsibilities of the 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction by including 
all reconstruction funding provided regardless of source or 
fiscal year. Currently, authority relating to certain 
reconstruction funds provided for Iraq in fiscal year 2005 is 
unclear, and as of the date of this report, authority does not 
extend to any reconstruction funding for fiscal year 2007 or 
beyond.

Section 1222--Continuation of Prohibition on Establishment of Permanent 
   Military Installations in Iraq or United States Control Over Oil 
                           Resources of Iraq

    This section would make permanent section 1519 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364) that prohibited the establishment of 
permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and forbade the exercise 
of U.S. economic control over the oil resources of Iraq.

  Section 1223--Report on Department of Defense Efforts To Build the 
    Capacity of the Government of Iraq To Carry Out Reconstruction 
                           Activities in Iraq

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to Congress on actions taken by the Department 
of Defense to enhance the ability of the Government of Iraq to 
better assess reconstruction needs and to enter into and 
oversee reconstruction contracts.

 Section 1224--Report on Implementation of Multi-National Forces-Iraq/
   United States Embassy Baghdad Joint Campaign Plan and Efforts to 
                    Achieve Political Reform in Iraq

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense in 
coordination with the Secretary of State to submit a report 
detailing the implementation of the Multi-National Forces--
Iraq/United States Embassy Baghdad Joint Campaign Plan for Iraq 
(hereafter the Joint Campaign Plan) since January 1, 2007, and 
efforts to achieve political reconciliation made by the Iraqi 
government, to the congressional defense committees, as well as 
the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Committee 
on Foreign Relations by September 30, 2007, and every six 
months thereafter. This section would mandate that the 
secretaries provide the assessments of the Commander, Multi-
National Forces--Iraq and the U. S. Ambassador to Iraq as part 
of this report. The report would include a detailed description 
of the goals and measures of the Joint Campaign Plan and 
assessments of the current situation in relation to those 
goals; efforts of the Iraqi Government to achieve political 
reconciliation; an assessment of security across Iraq; and the 
status of the training and capability of Iraqi security forces. 
Based on the information contained in this report, this section 
would require the Secretary of Defense to include his best 
assessment as to the force levels required in Iraq for the six 
months beginning October 1, 2007, the missions to be undertaken 
by those forces, and the incremental costs of proposed changes 
to currently planned force levels, and shall lay out the range 
of contingency plans under consideration for American force 
levels or changes in mission during that period.
    The committee remains deeply concerned about the conflict 
in Iraq--its sectarian component; the willingness and ability 
of the Iraqis to take on greater responsibility for their 
security and the political reconciliation that will reduce 
support for the insurgency; and its impact on the readiness of 
the American military. In undertaking an increase in forces in 
January, President Bush indicated that America's commitment was 
not open-ended, and that if the Iraqi Government did not follow 
through on promises that have been made, it would lose the 
support of the American people. Similarly, Secretary of Defense 
Robert Gates, at the start of the campaign, indicated that 
American patience would not be infinite with this campaign. 
More recently, the new Commander of Multinational Force--Iraq, 
General David Petraeus, remarked that the campaign needed to be 
assessed carefully and that he, along with Ambassador Ryan 
Crocker, would be delivering that assessment in September. The 
committee believes that Congress needs the same frank 
assessment to understand and consider any further adjustments 
that the Administration may wish to make to force levels or to 
shifts in mission on the ground and to provide the basis for 
any potential future congressional action regarding the conduct 
of the war. The committee trusts the commanders in theater to 
provide their best professional judgment to inform our 
understanding of the status of the U.S. mission in Iraq and the 
necessary force levels going forward.

     Section 1225--Report on Training of the Iraqi Security Forces

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense 
submit a report within 90 days of enactment of this Act and 
every three months thereafter to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs on the training and capability of Iraqi 
Security Forces.

   Section 1226--Sense of Congress on Responsibilities of the Iraqi 
 Council of Representatives To Enact Laws To Achieve Political Reform 
            and Diminish Support for the Insurgency in Iraq

    This section would express a sense of Congress that the 
Iraqi Council of Representatives should not recess for an 
extended period of time without making substantial progress in 
passing laws designed to further national reconciliation. The 
committee notes that General David Petraeus, the Commander, 
Multi-National Forces--Iraq, has commented that a political 
resolution is necessary in Iraq to end the insurgency. The 
committee is deeply concerned that the Iraqi Council of 
Representatives has been slow to pass measures designed to 
further national reconciliation and is instead considering 
adjourning for an extended summer recess. The committee hopes 
that the Iraqi Council of Representatives will postpone such a 
recess until after substantial progress is made toward passing 
the laws mentioned in the resolution that will move Iraqi 
society closer to reconciliation.

              Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Afghanistan


 Section 1231--Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

    This section would establish the Office of the Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, in order to 
provide independent and objective oversight and a transparent 
and reliable source of information relating to the programs and 
operations funded by the Department of Defense (DOD) for 
reconstruction of Afghanistan.
    The head of the Office of the Special Inspector General for 
Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) would be appointed by the 
President within 30 days after the enactment of this Act. This 
section would require SIGAR to report directly to and be under 
the supervision of the Secretary of Defense. This section would 
also require SIGAR to appoint an Assistant Inspector General 
for Auditing and an Assistant Inspector General for 
Investigations. SIGAR's duties would include oversight and 
accounting of the obligation and expenditure of DOD funds from 
the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the Commanders' Emergency 
Response Program and any other sources of DOD funds for the 
reconstruction of Afghanistan; the monitoring and review of 
relevant reconstruction activities and contracts and transfers 
of such funds; and the maintenance of records on the use of 
such funds. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to provide SIGAR with adequate office space and 
resources at DOD locations in Afghanistan.
    This section would require SIGAR to submit to the 
congressional defense committees quarterly and semi-annual 
reports summarizing SIGAR's activities and the activities under 
the programs and operations funded by the Department for 
reconstruction of Afghanistan. Additionally, this section would 
require Secretary of Defense to submit to the appropriate 
congressional committees any comments to each quarterly or 
semi-annual report, within 30 days after receipt by the 
Secretary of the report. Such reports and comments would be 
made available to the public in English and any language that 
SIGAR determines is widely used in Afghanistan.
    The Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction would terminate 10 months after 80 percent of 
DOD funds for the reconstruction of Afghanistan have been 
expended. Funds appropriated for fiscal year 2008 to the 
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund would be available to carry 
out this section, and would remain available until expended.
    The committee notes that the President's budget request for 
funding for reconstruction of Afghanistan is significantly 
increased in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, especially in the area 
of security, including a total request of $7.4 billion for the 
Afghan National Security Forces in fiscal year 2007, and an 
additional budget request of $2.7 billion for the Afghanistan 
national Security Forces in fiscal year 2008. The committee 
believes that reconstruction is critical to sustainable long-
term security and stability in Afghanistan, but the 
effectiveness of provincial reconstruction teams and other 
reconstruction activities in Afghanistan has been limited and 
should be significantly improved, in part by additional and 
more effective oversight relating to such activities.

   Section 1232--Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in 
                              Afghanistan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, 
the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the 
Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
Development, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the head of any 
other U.S. department or agency involved with activities 
relating to security and stability in Afghanistan, to submit to 
the congressional defense committees and to the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, within 90 days after the enactment of this 
Act, an unclassified report with a classified annex if 
necessary, on progress toward security and stability in 
Afghanistan.
    The report would include a description of the strategic 
direction of U.S. activities relating to security and stability 
in Afghanistan. The report would also include a separate 
section containing a comprehensive set of performance 
indicators and measures of progress toward sustainable long-
term security and stability in Afghanistan. The Department of 
Defense would be required to update the report every 90 days 
and provide such updates to the same congressional committees 
receiving the initial report.

    Section 1233--Report on Progress of the Department of Defense's 
               Counter-Narcotics Programs for Afghanistan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to Congress, within 90 days after the enactment of this 
Act, an unclassified report with a classified annex, if 
necessary, on the progress of the Department of Defense's 
programs and activities relating to counter-narcotics efforts 
in Afghanistan. The report would include a description of the 
strategic direction of the Department's programs and 
activities, and also contain a comprehensive set of performance 
indicators and measures of progress for the Department's 
programs and activities.
    The Department would be required to provide Congress with 
updates to the report every 90 days. The Department would be 
further required to submit the report, and any updates to the 
report, to Congress concurrently with the report required by 
section 1232 of this Act.

    Section 1234--United States Plan for Sustaining the Afghanistan 
                        National Security Forces

    This section would require, within 90 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of State and the U.S. Attorney 
General, to submit to the congressional defense committees and 
to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary, and the House Committee on the Judiciary, a report 
that sets forth a long-term detailed plan for sustaining the 
Afghanistan National Army and the Afghanistan National Police 
of the Afghanistan National Security Assistance Forces (ANSF). 
This plan would ensure that a strong and fully-capable ANSF 
will be able to independently and effectively conduct 
operations and maintain long-term security and stability in 
Afghanistan.
    The plan would include the following: (1) a clear, 
comprehensive and effective long-term strategy and budget, with 
defined objectives; (2) a mechanism for tracking funding, 
including obligations and expenditures, as well as equipment, 
training and services; (3) a comprehensive set of performance 
indicators and measures of progress; (4) coordination with all 
relevant U.S. agencies and departments, as well as countries 
participating in the North Atlantic Security Organization 
International Security Force and other international partners; 
and (5) actions to achieve a number of specific goals, 
including effective Afghan institutions with fully-capable 
leadership and staff, particularly a reformed Ministry of 
Interior, a fully-established Ministry of Defense, and 
logistics, intelligence, medical and recruiting units.
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
update the plan every 90 days and submit such updates to the 
same congressional committees receiving the initial report. 
Further, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit the plan and any updates to the plan to the appropriate 
congressional committees concurrently with the report required 
by section 1232 of this Act.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


  Section 1241--Cooperative Research and Development Agreements: NATO 
          Organizations; Allied and Friendly Foreign Countries

    This section would amend section 2350a of title 10, United 
States Code, to update the term ``arms cooperation opportunity 
document.'' This term has been replaced in standard Department 
of Defense (DOD) usage with the term cooperative opportunities 
document. This section would also require that a cooperative 
opportunities document be prepared for all programs undergoing 
an analysis of alternatives. The current requirement is that 
cooperative opportunities documents be prepared for all 
programs with mission need statements. The Department no longer 
prepares mission need statements.

    Section 1242--Extension of Counterproliferation Program Review 
                               Committee

    This section would extend the authorization, modify the 
reporting requirement, and update the membership of the 
Counterproliferation Program Review Committee.
    The committee is aware that the U.S. Government has made 
many organizational changes affecting counterproliferation 
programs since the establishment of the Counterproliferation 
Program Review Committee in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160). In addition, the 
committee recognizes that numerous interagency 
counterproliferation activities now exist and there is a need 
for simplification of reporting processes and inclusion of all 
critical organizations in the reporting process. This section 
would extend the authorization for the Counterproliferation 
Program Review Committee by five years to September 30, 2013, 
change the reporting requirement from annually to biennially, 
and update government agency membership by changing the 
intelligence official from the Director of Central Intelligence 
to the Director of National Intelligence and adding the 
Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, Health and Human 
Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This section 
would require the submission of the next report by March 1, 
2009.

   Section 1243--Sense of Congress Concerning the Western Hemisphere 
                   Institute for Security Cooperation

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation is 
succeeding in its mission to educate and train certain persons 
from nations in the western hemisphere and is an invaluable 
institution that the Department of Defense should continue to 
use to help foster cooperation and interoperability among the 
United States military and the militaries of participating 
nations.

   Section 1244--Sense of Congress Concerning the Strategic Military 
     Capabilities and Intentions of the People's Republic of China

    This section would express a sense of Congress that United 
States military warfighting capabilities are potentially 
threatened by the strategic military capabilities and 
intentions of the People's Republic of China, and that the 
Secretary of Defense should expand efforts to develop an 
accurate assessment of China's military modernization, 
particularly with respect to China's sea and space-based 
capabilities.

  TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER 
                              SOVIET UNION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
(CTR) Program contained $348.0 million for fiscal year 2008, 
representing a decrease of $24.1 million from the amount 
authorized in fiscal year 2007, exclusive of any supplemental 
funds. This request contained the following decreases: $64.1 
million for nuclear weapons storage security in the Russian 
Federation; and $42.7 million for chemical weapons destruction 
in Russia. The request also contained the following increases: 
$0.9 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in 
Russia; $4.7 million for nuclear weapons transportation 
security in Russia; $76.0 million for biological threat 
reduction in the former Soviet Union; $0.5 million for weapons 
of mass destruction proliferation prevention in the former 
Soviet Union; and $0.5 million for other assessments and 
administrative costs.
    The committee fully supports the goals of the CTR Program. 
The committee emphasizes, consistent with the findings of the 
9-11 Commission, that the CTR Program is critical to United 
States national security and must be a top national security 
priority. The committee is therefore seriously concerned that 
lack of effective policy guidance and leadership, and 
programmatic and funding constraints, have limited the progress 
of the CTR Program in recent years. The committee believes 
there must be a strong national commitment to reinvigorate the 
CTR Program, in part through increased funding that will 
accelerate, expand, and strengthen existing CTR programs and 
enable the development of new programs and projects.
    The committee would authorize $398.0 million, an increase 
of $50.0 million from the budget request for fiscal year 2008. 
The committee would authorize such $50.0 million increase to 
facilitate completion of the Shchuch'ye chemical weapons 
destruction project; to develop new CTR initiatives; and to 
increase staff capacity, capabilities, and resources related to 
such new initiatives. The committee would also specify a number 
of Department of Defense requirements that reflect the 
committee's intent to facilitate completion of the Shchuch'ye 
project, and would require the Secretary of Defense to submit 
an action plan for the development and implementation of new 
CTR initiatives.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


            Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project

    The committee believes that the completion of the 
Shchuch'ye chemical weapons destruction project is an essential 
priority for both the national security of the United States, 
and the integrity and long-term future of the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. The committee is concerned 
about a number of issues surrounding the project. The project 
was established in 1991, and since that time the United States, 
through the CTR Program, has invested nearly $1.0 billion in 
the project. Of the more than $1.0 billion authorized and 
appropriated for the project, the Department of Defense (DOD) 
intends to obligate approximately $25.0 million in remaining 
prior year funding over the next three years and is not seeking 
additional funds for fiscal year 2008. Recently, the Department 
has expended approximately $3.0 million per month on the 
project.
    The committee is not confident that the Department will be 
able to complete the project with the remaining budget. The 
total $1.039 billion authorized and appropriated for the 
project is based on an outdated cost estimate that the 
Department has used to set its budget for project completion, 
and does not fully account for the escalating price of Russian 
Federation labor, steel, concrete, or other project components. 
Moreover, the project is approximately no more than fifty 
percent complete.
    In sum, the committee is concerned that the DOD's current 
budget and strategy for the Shchuch'ye project does not reflect 
the United States' commitment to completing the project. Given 
these concerns, the committee would authorize $42.7 million for 
the project, the amount in fiscal year 2007, and would specify 
a number of DOD requirements in section 1304 of this Act that 
reflect the committee's intent to facilitate project 
completion.

                         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 (CTR) programs and funds as those 
authorized to be appropriated in section 1301 of this Act and 
would specify that CTR funds remain available for obligation 
for three fiscal years.

                   Section 1302--Funding Allocations

    This section would allocate specific amounts for each 
program element under the Cooperative Threat Reduction CTR 
Program from within the overall $398.0 million that the 
committee would authorize for the CTR Program. The allocation 
under this section reflects a $50.0 million increase from the 
budget request of $348.0 million for fiscal year 2008, as 
follows: $42.7 million to facilitate completion of the 
Shchuch'ye chemical weapons destruction project in Russia; $7.0 
million to develop new CTR initiatives that are outside the 
scope of existing CTR programs and projects; and $0.3 million 
for other assessments and administrative costs to increase 
staff capacity, capabilities, and resources related to such new 
CTR initiatives. This section would also require notification 
to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates 
and expends fiscal year 2008 funds for purposes other than 
those specifically authorized. In addition, this section would 
provide limited authority to obligate amounts for a program 
element under the CTR Program in excess of the amount 
specifically authorized for that purpose.

  Section 1303--New Initiatives for the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
                                Program

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Department of Defense should strengthen and expand the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, in part by 
developing new CTR initiatives, and would specify a number of 
new initiatives that the Department should consider.
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
30 days of the enactment of this Act, to commission a study by 
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to analyze possible 
options for strengthening and expanding the CTR Program.
    This section would further require the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the congressional defense committees and to the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, by March 31, 2008, a report on new CTR 
initiatives. The report would include the results of the NAS 
study; an assessment of the NAS study; and a specific action 
plan for the development and implementation of new CTR 
initiatives and the use of any funds for such initiatives, 
which would include a discussion of each new CTR initiative set 
forth in this section and the action plan for implementing the 
recommendations of the NAS study, if any.

Section 1304--Requirements Relating to Chemical Weapons Destruction at 
                           Shchuch'ye, Russia

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
notify the congressional defense committees within 30 days of 
the commencement of negotiations on, or the signing or 
finalization of, an agreement that would change implementation 
of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program chemical 
weapons destruction project located in the area of Shchuch'ye 
in the Russian Federation (referred to herein as the 
``project'') in any manner inconsistent with the purpose and 
intent of the amounts authorized and appropriated for the 
project.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the project to the congressional defense 
committees, within 60 days of the enactment of this Act, which 
includes a current and detailed cost estimate for completion of 
the project, and a specific strategic and operating plan for 
completion of the project. This section would require the 
Department to supplement the report required under this section 
with regular bi-monthly briefings to the congressional defense 
committees on the subject matter of the report.
    This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense 
from implementing any agreement described in this section until 
90 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the 
congressional defense committees the report required by this 
section, a copy of the signed and finalized agreement, and the 
Secretary's certification that the agreement:
         (1) Describes the respective responsibilities of the 
        Department of Defense and Russia relating to project 
        completion, including the areas of management, 
        oversight, implementation, security, quality assurance, 
        and sustainability;
         (2) Specifies the date of project completion;
         (3) Provides safeguards needed to ensure timely and 
        effective project completion; and
         (4) Ensures the chemical weapons stockpile at the 
        project site is secure.

 Section 1305--Repeal of Restrictions on Cooperative Threat Reduction 
                                Program

    This section would repeal certain presidential 
certification requirements relating to assistance to the 
Russian Federation under the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) 
Program, and repeal a limitation on the use of CTR funds for 
chemical weapons destruction in Russia. The committee notes 
this section is consistent with the recommendations of the 9-11 
Commission regarding the need to expand, strengthen, and 
otherwise fully support the CTR Program and certain other 
threat reduction and nonproliferation programs.

   Section 1306--Authority To Use Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds 
                    Outside the Former Soviet Union

    This section would modify certain presidential 
certification and congressional notice requirements and repeal 
a funding limitation regarding the use of Cooperative Threat 
Reduction (CTR) funds for programs outside the former Soviet 
Union, while increasing oversight of such programs. The 
committee notes this section is consistent with the 
recommendations of the 9-11 Commission regarding the need to 
expand, strengthen, and otherwise support the CTR Program and 
certain other threat reduction and nonproliferation programs.

                 TITLE XIV--WOUNDED WARRIOR ASSISTANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to be concerned that wounded 
warriors receive the best care possible. The conditions at the 
Walter Reed Army Medical Center added a new urgency to the 
committee's task to develop the legislative remedies needed to 
address the problems being confronted by wounded warriors and 
their families. The sections in this title would establish new 
statutory requirements to provide the people, training, and 
oversight mechanisms needed to ensure that the nation's wounded 
warriors receive quality medical care and efficient 
administrative processing in an environment that reflects the 
highest quality of life standards. The sections in this title 
would also set the stage for much needed reform of the 
administrative processes that will restore member confidence in 
the integrity and efficiency of the disability evaluation 
system and begin the process of achieving a truly seamless 
transition of service members to programs operated by 
Department of Veterans Affairs.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                       Section 1401--Definitions

    This section would define terms used throughout this title.

          Subtitle A--Improved Assistance for Wounded Warriors


 Section 1411--Improvements to Medical and Dental Care for Members of 
     the Armed Forces Assigned to Hospitals in an Outpatient Status

    This section would require the assignment of a medical care 
case manager and a service member advocate to each service 
member assigned to a military treatment facility in an 
outpatient status or other unit designated to manage service 
members receiving outpatient medical care. This section would 
specify the duties of medical care case managers and service 
member advocates, require the development of standardized 
training curriculums for each, and would limit the number of 
cases that may be assigned to each. This section would also 
require the secretary concerned to conduct semiannual surveys 
of members in an outpatient status to determine the quality of 
medical care, adequacy of facilities, and effectiveness of 
disability evaluation systems, and to coordinate the results 
with installation medical commanders and authorities.

 Section 1412--Establishment of a Department of Defense-wide Ombudsman 
                                 Office

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a Department of Defense (DOD)-wide Ombudsman Office 
to provide policy guidance to the ombudsman offices in the 
military departments regarding the information and assistance 
provided to recovering service members and their families. The 
DOD-wide Ombudsman Office would also establish accountability 
standards to ensure the effective operation of the ombudsman 
offices in the military departments. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all support 
agencies within the Department and the military departments 
respond in a timely manner to resolve questions and requests 
from the DOD-wide Ombudsman Office on behalf of recovering 
service members.

    Section 1413--Establishment of Toll-Free Hot Line for Reporting 
   Deficiencies in Medical-Related Support Facilities and Expedited 
                  Response to Reports of Deficiencies

    This section would require the establishment of a 
confidential, toll-free hot line for reporting deficiencies in 
facilities supporting medical patients and family members. This 
section would require investigation and formulation of a plan 
to remediate substantiated complaints within 96 hours, to 
include relocation of occupants when health and safety 
standards are violated.

  Section 1414--Notification to Congress of Hospitalization of Combat 
                        Wounded Service Members

    This section would require the secretaries concerned to 
notify members of Congress of the admission of a service member 
who has been evacuated from a theater of combat, with the 
service member's consent.

 Section 1415--Independent Medical Advocate for Members Before Medical 
                           Evaluation Boards

    This section would require assignment of independent health 
care professionals to serve as counselors and advocates for 
service members being considered by medical evaluation boards.

   Section 1416--Training and Workload for Physical Evaluation Board 
                            Liaison Officers

    This section would establish 20 cases as the maximum number 
that may be assigned to a physical evaluation board liaison 
officer or an assistant physical evaluation board liaison 
officer. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a standard training curriculum for 
physical evaluation board liaison officers or assistant 
physical evaluation board liaison officers.

    Section 1417--Standardized Training Program and Curriculum for 
           Department of Defense Disability Evaluation System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a standardized training program and curriculum for 
persons involved in the disability evaluation system to include 
commanders, enlisted supervisors, health care professionals, 
and other persons with administrative, professional, or 
technical responsibilities in the disability evaluation system.

Section 1418--Improved Training for Health Care Professionals, Medical 
    Care Case Managers, and Service Member Advocates on Particular 
                Conditions of Recovering Service Members

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
annually recommend improvements to the training of health care 
professionals, medical care case managers, and service member 
advocates to increase their effectiveness in assisting 
recovering wounded warriors. This section would, at a minimum, 
require the Secretary to make recommendations about improving 
training in the identification of post-traumatic stress 
disorder, suicidal or homicidal thoughts or ideations, and 
other behavioral health concerns among recovering members and 
the timely reporting of observations to the appropriate health 
care professionals. This section would also require the 
Secretary to develop a system for tracking the number of 
notifications provided to health care professionals in 
accordance with this section.

   Section 1419--Pilot Program to Establish an Army Wounded Warrior 
              Battalion at an Appropriate Active Duty Base

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
establish an Army Wounded Warrior Battalion pilot program at an 
installation with a major medical facility modeled after the 
Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Regiment program. The Secretary 
shall report the results of the pilot program within 90 days 
after completion of a one-year test.

Section 1420--Criteria for Removal of Member from Temporary Disability 
                              Retired List

    This section would require that service member medical 
conditions must be permanent and stable before being removed 
from the temporary duty retired list.

  Section 1421--Improved Transition of Members of the Armed Forces to 
     Department of Veterans Affairs upon Retirement and Separation

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide disabled service members being separated or retired 
from the armed forces with a written plan for transition of the 
member to programs operated by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and a formal process for the transmittal of records and 
other information to the Department of Veterans Affairs on or 
before the date of separation or retirement. This section would 
require the service member's identification and contact 
information to be provided to the applicable state agency 
responsible for veterans' affairs, with the consent of the 
member. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a 
joint separation and evaluation physical examination and a 
fully interoperable medical information system.

  Section 1422--Establishment of Medical Support Fund for Support of 
 Members of the Armed Forces Returning to Military Service or Civilian 
                                  Life

    This section would authorize a Treasury fund to be used to 
support programs and activities relating to the medical 
treatment, care, rehabilitation, recovery, and support of 
wounded and injured members of the armed forces. This section 
would authorize $50.0 million from funds authorized within 
section 421 of this Act, to remain available through September 
30, 2008. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to transfer $10.0 million during fiscal year 2008 to 
support programs, activities, and facilities associated with 
the Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Regiment program.

           Section 1423--Oversight Board for Wounded Warriors

    This section would require the establishment of an 
Oversight Board for Wounded Warriors to give oversight to 
medical care, quality of life, administrative processing, and 
family programs supporting wounded warriors and to provide 
advice and counsel to the Congress and the Department of 
Defense about how the programs can be made more efficient and 
effective. The board would be composed of 12 members with 
knowledge or experience of military health care, disability 
evaluation systems, or the challenges faced by recovering 
wounded warriors.

Section 1424--Option for Members of Reserve Components to Use Military 
   Medical Treatment Facilities Closest to Home for Certain Injuries

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
expand the opportunities for recovering service members of the 
reserve components to receive treatment on an outpatient basis 
at a military treatment facility closest to the member's home 
rather than the base from which the member was deployed.

  Section 1425--Plans and Research for Reducing Post-Traumatic Stress 
                                Disorder

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan to incorporate evidence-based preventive and 
early-intervention measures, practices, or procedures into pre-
deployment training, combat theater operations, and post-
deployment service to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence 
of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or similar 
psychopathologies. This section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to study the feasibility of establishing both a working 
group and a peer-reviewed research program tasked with 
researching and developing evidence-based measures, practices, 
and procedures to reduce the likelihood that personnel serving 
in combat will develop PTSD.

                    Subtitle B--Studies and Reports


       Section 1431--Annual Report on Military Medical Facilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit an annual report beginning with the budget submission 
for fiscal year 2009 on the adequacy, suitability, and quality 
of military medical facilities and medical-related support 
facilities. This section would require that the report include 
any facility deficiencies and accompanying response plans 
identified through the toll-free hot line made available to 
service members and families residing in medical-related 
support facilities.

    Section 1432--Access of Recovering Service Members to Adequate 
                   Outpatient Residential Facilities

    This section would require the Inspectors General of the 
regional medical commands to conduct semi-annual inspections of 
facilities housing recovering service members for the first two 
years following the date of enactment of this Act and annually 
thereafter. This section would require the inspection results 
to be coordinated with local and service medical and civilian 
leadership, reported to the Congress, and posted on the 
Internet website for the regional medical command.

   Section 1433--Evaluation and Report on Department of Defense and 
      Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Evaluation Systems

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a joint evaluation of 
the disability evaluation systems operated by both secretaries 
for the purpose of improving the consistency of the two systems 
and evaluating the feasibility of, and potential for, 
consolidating the two systems. This section would require the 
secretaries to consider the findings and recommendations of the 
Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission.

  Section 1434--Study and Report on Support Services for Families of 
                       Recovering Service Members

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study of the support services provided to families of 
recovering service members to include: a survey of the services 
currently provided; a determination of the services that may be 
provided with the associated costs; an estimate of the number 
of family members that would be eligible to receive the 
services; and a determination of any employment discrimination 
that the family members experience.

     Section 1435--Report on Traumatic Brain Injury Classifications

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
report on the changes being undertaken to ensure that traumatic 
brain injury victims receive a proper medical designation 
concomitant with their injury. The committee is aware that the 
Department of Defense recognizes that the current 
classification of organic psychiatric disorder used to classify 
traumatic brain injuries suffered by service members may 
require further definition.

    Section 1436--Evaluation of the Polytrauma Liaison Officer/Non-
                      Commissioned Officer Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an evaluation of the Polytrauma Liaison Officer/Non-
commissioned Officer program operated by the military 
departments and the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist 
the transition of members from the Department of Defense health 
care system to the Department of Veterans Affairs system.

  Section 1437--Study and Report on Standard Soldier Patient Tracking 
                                 System

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study on the feasibility of developing a soldier 
tracking system for recovering service members to ensure that 
each member's location and exact status in the medical holdover 
process can be determined by commanders, medical holdover 
managers, and the members themselves.

 Section 1438--Study and Report on Waiting Periods for Appointments at 
           Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs to study the average length of time between the desired 
date for which a veteran seeks an appointment for health care 
at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility and the 
date on which such an appointment is completed. This section 
would require the Secretary to report his findings and 
recommendations for reducing the waiting time between the 
desired date for an appointment and the completion of the 
appointment to a maximum of 15 days.

                     Subtitle C--General Provisions


  Section 1451--Moratorium on Conversion to Contractor Performance of 
     Department of Defense Functions at Military Medical Facilities

    This section would prohibit the initiation or announcement 
of a competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular 
A-76 relating to the possible conversion to performance of 
functions at a Department of Defense military medical facility 
by a contractor. The prohibition would be effective during a 
12-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

  Section 1452--Prohibition on Transfer of Resources from Medical Care

    This section would prohibit the transfer of funds or 
personnel from medical care functions within the Department of 
Defense to support the administrative requirements imposed by 
this Act.

Section 1453--Increase in Physicians at Hospitals of the Department of 
                            Veterans Affairs

    This section would require the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs to increase the number of resident physicians at 
hospitals of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

  TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI 
                 FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

                                OVERVIEW

    Section 1008 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), required the budget 
submission to Congress for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
2007 to include:
          (1) A request for the appropriation of funds for that 
        fiscal year for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and 
        Iraq;
          (2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required 
        in that fiscal year for operations; and
          (3) A detailed justification of the funds requested.
    The committee recognizes that the Department's budget 
submission for fiscal year 2008 complied with this section and 
expects similar budget justification materials to be provided 
with the fiscal year 2009 budget submission to the extent that 
operations are still anticipated to require American military 
commitment during that period.
    The committee recommends authorization of $141.8 billion in 
funds to be appropriated available upon enactment of this Act 
to support the defense activities principally associated with 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

                    SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

    The following table summarizes authorizations included in 
the bill for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                              Procurement


F/A-18E/F

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $725.7 million for procurement of 12 F/A-
18E/F aircraft.
    The committee notes that the conference report (H. Rept. 
110-107) accompanying the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' 
Health Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
Appropriations Act, 2007, an increase of $192.0 million for 
three F/A-18E/Fs, and believes that this increase meets 
requirements for three F/A-18E/Fs for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $543.7 million, a decrease of 
$182.0 million, for F/A-18E/F procurement for three F/A-18E/F 
aircraft.

F-15 modifications

    The fiscal year 2008 request for ongoing military 
operations contained $152.9 million for F-15 modifications, 
containing $22.0 million for tactical targeting network 
technology (TTNT).
    TTNT would provide the F-15 with wideband network 
technology for improved data transmission and reception. The 
committee notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
recommended a decrease of $22.0 million for the TTNT since 
these funds could not be obligated until fiscal year 2010, and 
that the Department of the Air Force F-15 program office 
concurred with the GAO recommendation.
    The committee recommends $130.0 million, a decrease of 
$22.0 million, for F-15 modifications.

Hellfire missiles

    The fiscal year budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $228.4 million to procure 2,585 Hellfire 
missiles.
    The committee recognizes that the Hellfire missile has 
provided invaluable point target capabilities in current 
operations and continues to be the Army's primary air-launched 
anti-armor system. The committee understands that nearly 6,800 
Hellfire missiles have been expended during current military 
operations, and that the Army continues to expend over 720 
missiles per fiscal year in combat operations alone. Based upon 
current usage, the inventory will fall below the Army's 
projected requirement in fiscal year 2013.
    While the current acquisition strategy is subject to change 
due to developments in the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) 
program, the committee remains concerned that there will be a 
minimum of a three year capabilities gap between a shortfall in 
Hellfire inventory in fiscal year 2013, and the planned 
initiation of full-rate production of JAGM in fiscal year 2016. 
The committee is also concerned about the continued practice of 
the Air Force borrowing missiles from the Army inventory, 
rather than procuring its own missiles, further depleting the 
Army's inventory.
    Therefore, the committee strongly suggests that the Army 
reconsider its acquisition policy and procure Hellfire missiles 
to maintain the minimum inventory as defined by the Army's 
stated requirements. In addition, the committee strongly 
recommends that the Air Force budget for its projected Hellfire 
missile requirements.

Joint network node

    The fiscal year budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $2.2 billion for Joint Network Node (JNN) 
equipment. In addition, the base budget request contained 
$372.3 million for JNN equipment.
    The committee notes that the Army is in the process of 
transitioning the JNN system to a program of record. As part of 
this process, the Army intends to produce a set of low-rate 
initial production (LRIP) JNN equipment for use in operational 
test and evaluation necessary to proceed to full-rate 
production. Therefore, the committee does not believe the Army 
could execute the requested $2.2 billion after completing LRIP, 
the operational test and evaluation, and a Milestone C decision 
event in fiscal year 2008. In addition, the committee believes 
that the funding for JNN equipment provided in fiscal year 
2007, the funding authorized for JNN funding under title I of 
this Act, and the funding authorized in this title is 
sufficient to procure the quantities of JNN equipment necessary 
to meet deployment requirements and conduct the operational 
test and evaluation.
    The committee recommends $115.3 million, a decrease of $2.1 
billion, for Joint Network Node procurement. The $115.3 million 
authorized is in addition to the $347.4 million authorized in 
title I of this Act. Of the $2.1 billion decrease, $1.0 billion 
was transferred to the mine resistant ambush protected vehicle.

Joint strike fighter

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $230.0 million for one F-35A aircraft.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force 
justifies the $230.0 million request for one F-35A aircraft as 
a replacement for the combat loss of one F-16 aircraft. 
However, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) budget fact 
sheet notes that this aircraft would not be delivered until 
fiscal year 2010, would be used as a training aircraft, 
recognizes several F-16s are planned for retirement in the next 
three years, and recommended that the Department of the Air 
Force delay the planned retirement of one F-16 to replace this 
combat loss. The committee also notes that the Department of 
the Air Force did not provide comments on the GAO 
recommendation despite its opportunity to do so. The committee 
concurs with the GAO recommendation.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $230.0 
million, for one F-35A aircraft.

MC-130J

    The fiscal year 2008 request for ongoing military 
operations contained $1.4 billion for 17 C-130Js, of which 
$132.0 million was included for two MC-130J variants.
    The MC-130J program would provide a replacement for the 
aging MC-130E and MC-130P fleets, which perform special 
operations infiltration, exfiltration, re-supply, and 
helicopter aerial refueling missions. The committee notes that 
the projected budget request for fiscal year 2009 contains 
$65.7 million for advance procurement for four MC-130J 
aircraft. The committee also notes that the MC-130J procurement 
program is a new start program for fiscal year 2008, at the 
time of the budget request neither the capabilities development 
document nor the acquisition strategy had been finalized, and 
that the budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 64261F 
for both HC-130J and MC-130J acquisition planning, systems 
engineering, and test planning. The committee believes that 
capabilities development and completion of the acquisition 
strategy should precede a request for full funding, and that 
funding has been requested in PE 64261F to complete these 
activities in fiscal year 2008. However, the committee also 
believes that advance procurement of two MC-130Js in fiscal 
year 2009 should be provided, consistent with the budget 
request.
    The committee recommends $1.2 billion for C-130J 
procurement, a decrease of $132.0 million for two MC-130J 
aircraft. The committee also recommends an increase of $33.0 
million for advance procurement of two MC-130Js for fiscal year 
2009.

Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $441.0 million to procure mine resistant 
ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles. The committee understands 
that a $4.1 billion unfunded requirement remains for the MRAP 
vehicle program.
    The MRAP vehicle program is not viewed by the military 
services as a long-term acquisition program of record but 
rather is seen as an urgent theater specific requirement that 
would address an immediate need for additional force protection 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom from 
improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The committee understands 
MRAP vehicles could reduce the casualties in vehicles from IED 
attacks by as much as 80 percent. The committee is also aware 
the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Staff of 
the Army have indicated that MRAP vehicles are their top 
priority and have stated officially to the Chairman of Joint 
Chiefs of Staff the request to fully resource the MRAP theater 
requirement.
    The committee remains concerned that the fiscal year 2008 
budget request for ongoing military operations did not 
adequately resource the remaining MRAP funding requirement 
considering the urgent need for the program. The committee 
believes it had no other alternative but to realign funding 
from lower priority programs in the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request for ongoing military operations to address the urgent 
MRAP requirement since the Department did not anticipate 
emerging MRAP requirements. The committee feels strongly that 
the Department of Defense should submit to the congressional 
defense committees an amended fiscal year 2008 request for 
ongoing military operations that adequately resources the MRAP 
vehicle program based on reasonable projected industrial base 
production capability.
    The committee understands the MRAP acquisition strategy is 
extremely ambitious and would utilize up to nine vendors to 
maximize industrial base production capability and delivery 
cycles. The committee supports this unprecedented acquisition 
strategy because of the urgency and need for the requirement 
but notes this strategy could present significant difficulties 
across the full spectrum of acquisition and sustainment. The 
committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
Research, Development and Acquisition to submit updates every 
30 days to the congressional defense committees on (1) MRAP 
requirements; (2) contracting strategy; (3) additional test and 
evaluation; (4) sustainment strategy; and (5) implications for 
other acquisition programs considering contract priority 
ratings.
    The committee recommends $4.6 billion, an increase of $4.1 
billion, to complete the MRAP theater requirement. The funding 
provided in this act is as follows:
Other procurement, Army.................................         $1.55 B
Other procurement, Navy.................................         $21.0 M
Procurement, Marine Corps...............................         $1.98 B
Other Procurement, Air Force............................        $430.0 M
Procurement, Defense-Wide...............................        $125.0 M

Radio, improved high frequency, commercial off the shelf family

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $433.5 million for radio, improved high 
frequency family systems. In addition, the base budget request 
contained $81.4 million for radio, improved high-frequency 
family systems.
    The committee notes that during fiscal years 2006 and 
fiscal years 2007, the Army received funding to procure more 
than 56,000 improved high-frequency radios of various models, 
yet unit cost per radio has remained either flat or has 
increased. In addition, the committee notes that the Army has a 
limited production capacity that may not allow for execution of 
the full amount requested in fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $325.1 million, a decrease of 
$108.4 million, for the radio, improved high-frequency family 
systems. The $325.1 million authorized is in addition to the 
$61.0 million authorized in title I of this Act.

Single channel ground and airborne radio system family

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $1.4 billion for procurement of 98,410 
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) 
family radios. In addition, the base budget request contained 
$147.6 million for SINCGARS family radios.
    The committee notes that the unit cost for SINCGARS radios 
increased from approximately $7,000 per radio system in the 
fiscal year 2007 budget request to approximately $10,000 per 
radio system in the fiscal year 2008 budget request. This 
growth in unit cost occurred despite no change in the type of 
radios procured and a dramatic increase in the overall number 
of radios planned for procurement. In addition, the committee 
is concerned that the Army requested funding for 98,410 radios 
when, according to analysis by the Government Accountability 
Office, only 44,900 can be produced and delivered by the first 
quarter of fiscal year 2010.
    The committee recommends $615.9 million, a decrease of 
$754.5 million, for SINCGARS family radios procurement. The 
$615.9 million is in addition to the $147.6 million authorized 
in title I of this Act.

Tactical operations centers reduction

    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military 
operations contained $263.7 million for Tactical Operations 
Centers (TOC) equipment. In addition, the base budget request 
contained $393.9 million for TOC equipment.
    The committee notes that the Army TOC program provides a 
capability similar to several other Department of Defense 
programs, including the Navy Deployable Joint Command and 
Control (DJC2) and U.S. Marine Corps Combat Operations Center 
(COC) programs. The committee also notes that the Army received 
$219.9 million in fiscal year 2007 for the TOC program.
    The committee recommends $131.9 million, a decrease of 
$131.9 million, for Army Tactical Operations Centers 
procurement. The $131.9 million authorized is in addition to 
the $196.9 million authorized in Title I of this act.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


A-10 squadrons

    The budget request contained $230.0 million for A-10 
squadrons to develop an A-10 propulsion upgrade program (PUP) 
for the A-10's TF-34-100A engine. The PUP would develop an 
engine kit that would result in a TF-34-100B engine capable of 
providing increased thrust.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified this 
as a premature request because the $215.0 million could not be 
obligated until the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 when 
comencement of the system development and demonstration (SDD) 
program is scheduled to begin. The committee notes that the A-
10 program office reviewed the GAO recommendation and found no 
errors of facts or omissions in its content. The committee 
understands that $15.0 million can be obligated in fiscal year 
2008 for pre-SDD activities.
    The committee recommends $15.0 million, a decrease of 
$215.0 million for A-10 squadrons. The committee supports the 
requirement for an A-10 PUP, and encourages the Department of 
the Air Force to request funding for the PUP in its Future 
Years Defense Program.
    The committee also notes that while $230.0 million was 
requested for the PUP SDD, the budget justification materials 
state that the cost estimate for the PUP SDD program is $275.0 
million, or $45.0 million less than the amount requested. 
Additionally, budget justification materials state that the PUP 
engine kit production, installation, and logistics cost 
estimate for the Department of the Air Force's A-10 fleet is 
$2.0 billion, but that procurement funds are not budgeted for 
this purpose. The committee strongly cautions the Department of 
the Air Force against submitting a budget request for a program 
without the budgeted funds necessary to carry out its 
acquisition strategy.

E-10 squadrons

    The fiscal year 2008 request for ongoing military 
operations contained $178.4 million for development of E-10 
aircraft capabilities, containing $124.8 million for multi-
platform radar technology insertion program (MP-RTIP) sensor 
development and $53.5 million was included for either 
development of battle management command and control (BMC2) 
architecture or for the final payment on a Boeing 767-400ER 
aircraft.
    The Boeing 767-400ER was planned to be an E-10 test 
aircraft. The E-10 aircraft was intended to be key node in the 
command and control constellation that would have brought 
operational command and control through the use of advanced 
sensors, sensor fusion, and high-speed, wide-band 
communications systems; however, the committee notes that the 
E-10 program will be terminated in fiscal year 2007.
    The MP-RTIP is a modular, scalable two-dimensional active 
electronically-scanned array radar system, which would have 
been used on the E-10 aircraft, and is currently being 
developed in a smaller size for use on the Global Hawk unmanned 
aerial vehicle (UAV). The committee notes that the Department 
of the Air Force is uncertain with respect to how the MP-RTIP 
funds would be used since its justification for these funds is 
not definitive as to whether funds would be used for 
acceleration of deferred or removed MP-RTIP radar modes, or to 
develop new MP-RTIP radar modes. Similarly, the committee notes 
that the Department of the Air Force is also uncertain as to 
whether funds would be used to develop BMC2 architecture or for 
the final payment on a Boeing 767-400ER aircraft.
    The committee recommends no funds for E-10 squadrons, a 
decrease of $178.4 million.

F-16 squadrons

    The budget request contained $55.3 million for F-16 
squadrons, containing $7.7 million to develop F-16 beyond line 
of sight (BLOS) secure communications.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified $47.6 
million as excess to F-16 BLOS secure communication 
requirements, and notes that the Department of the Air Force 
concurred with the GAO recommendation to reduce the F-16 
modification budget request by $47.6 million.
    The committee recommends $7.7 million for F-16 
modifications, a decrease of $47.6 million.

                       Operation and Maintenance


Logistics Civil Augmentation Program

    The budget request contained $6.0 billion for the Logistics 
Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). The LOGCAP is an Army 
managed program, which contracts for the delivery of several 
categories of base camp services at overseas locations 
including dining halls, power generation, and waste management. 
The committee notes that the budget request exceeds the amount 
budgeted for this program in fiscal year 2007 by $880.7 
million, or more than 14 percent. However, the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense has testified that the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request for ongoing military operations was based upon a 
straight-line projection of the war costs in fiscal year 2007. 
The committee is therefore concerned that the increase in the 
budget request may be due to cost growth in the LOGCAP program.
    The committee is deeply concerned about the cost 
performance of the LOGCAP contract and the ability of the 
Department of Defense to properly manage and oversee this 
contract. The Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency and 
the Army Auditor General testified before the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services (SASC) on April 19, 2007, regarding numerous 
unnecessary or unallowable cost proposals submitted under the 
LOGCAP program, including labor rates 50 percent more than 
historical averages, material costs overstated by 47 percent, 
acquisition of equipment well in excess of requirements, 
excessive management overhead, and the hiring of private 
security contractors in violation of explicit contract 
requirements. In total, the Army testified that it had reduced 
payments to the contractor in 2005 and 2006 from the 
contractor's estimate of $10.0 billion to $4.0 billion, a 
decrease of $6.0 billion in the costs initially proposed by the 
contractor. Despite all of these problems with contract 
management, the Army has consistently awarded more than 85 
percent of the money allocated for incentive fees to the 
contractor, whose primary function is to manage and control 
subcontractors and their costs. Award fees have totaled more 
than $250.0 million.
    The Army presented testimony during the April 19, 2007 SASC 
hearing that it has made significant progress in controlling 
costs under LOGCAP since August of 2005. In addition, the 
committee is aware that the Army will be awarding a new set of 
contracts for this program, known collectively as LOGCAP IV, 
during fiscal year 2007, which will ensure the participation of 
more than one contractor in the program. LOGCAP IV will allow 
for competition of task orders, therefore lowering costs. For 
these reasons, the committee expects that all other factors 
being equal, costs under the LOGCAP program should be lower 
during fiscal year 2008 than during fiscal year 2007. The 
committee accordingly recommends $4.1 billion, a decrease of 
$880.0 million for LOGCAP.

                           Military Personnel

    The committee has recommended increases in the active 
component end strength for the Army and the Marine Corps to 
sustain the full range of capabilities being assigned to the 
ground forces. The committee recommends funding a cumulative 
active component increase of 36,000 for the Army and 9,000 for 
the Marine Corps over and above the budget request.

                         Military Construction

    The budget request contained $907.9 million to support 
construction efforts, containing $212.4 million in power plants 
and wastewater treatment plants in Iraq.
    The committee has consistently advocated for temporary 
infrastructure improvements in Iraq that maintain the 
expeditionary nature of operations. Construction of power 
plants and wastewater treatment plants denotes an enduring 
presence in theater and is contrary to existing Department of 
Defense policy and the committee's direction for the 
sustainment of current operations.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $212.4 million for 
power plants and wastewater treatment plants in Iraq.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                         Section 1501--Purpose

    This section would establish this title and make 
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. This section would also state that Congress has 
provided deployed forces and their families with ongoing funds 
for their protection and operations and will continue to 
support their service and valor.

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


                     Section 1502--Army Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $18.2 billion 
for Army procurement.

            Section 1503--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $5.4 billion for 
Navy and Marine Corps procurement.

                  Section 1504--Air Force Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $9.2 billion for 
Air Force procurement.

      Section 1505--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

    This section would authorize an additional $4.0 billion for 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.

           Section 1506--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $0.6 billion for 
Defense-Wide Activities procurement.

        Section 1507--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

    This section would authorize an additional $2.2 billion for 
research, development, test and evaluation.

                Section 1508--Operations and Maintenance

    This section would authorize an additional $72.2 billion 
for operations and maintenance programs.

              Section 1509--Defense Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize an additional $1.7 billion for 
Defense Working Capital Funds.

           Section 1510--Other Department of Defense Programs

    This section would authorize an additional $2.3 billion to 
other Department of Defense programs.

                    Section 1511--Iraq Freedom Fund

    This section would authorize an additional $0.1 billion to 
the Iraq Freedom Fund.

                Section 1512--Iraq Security Forces Fund

    This section would authorize an additional $2.0 billion to 
the Iraq Security Forces Fund.

             Section 1513--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

    This section would authorize an additional $2.7 billion to 
the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.

                    Section 1514--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize an additional $17.5 billion 
for military personnel.

    Section 1515--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize an additional $0.5 billion for 
Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects.

    Section 1516--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize an additional $0.2 billion for 
Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects.

          Section 1517--Treatment as Additional Authorizations

    This section would state that amounts authorized to be 
appropriated by this Title are in addition to amounts otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.

                 TITLE XVI--NATIONAL GUARD ENHANCEMENT

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


  Joint Qualification Credit for Service as the Adjutant General of a 
                                 State

    The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is 
in the process of developing and implementing a new joint 
qualification system based on reforms to the joint officer 
management system and joint professional military education 
system required by section 516 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364). The committee also understands that the new joint 
qualification system would apply to reserve component officers 
on the reserve active status list and to federally recognized 
officers and that such officers who perform duties that meet 
the criteria established for joint matters would be able to 
earn joint experience points and be designated a joint 
qualified officer. The committee believes that in implementing 
the new joint qualification system the Secretary should 
evaluate the positions of adjutant generals in each of the 
States. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary to 
review:
          (1) The adjutant general positions in the States to 
        determine whether the duties of those positions meet 
        the criteria for joint matters and whether, if filled 
        by a federally recognized reserve component officer, 
        would give that officer joint experience points; and
          (2) The past service of currently serving federally 
        recognized State adjutants general to determine whether 
        their past or current service qualifies for joint 
        experience credit and whether such service qualifies 
        any for designation as a joint qualified officer.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
the findings of this review to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within one 
year of enactment of this Act.

  Report on Reforms Needed To Produce Sufficient Numbers of Qualified 
Reserve Component Personnel To Serve in Senior General and Flag Officer 
                               Positions

    Beginning with Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, 
the armed forces increasingly have relied on the reserve 
components for a wide variety of operational missions, 
including wartime roles, homeland defense missions, and 
military assistance to civil authorities. Accompanying this 
increased reliance are the expanded requirements for reserve 
component officers to serve on active duty or full-time 
national guard duty in general and flag officer positions, not 
only within their respective military services, but also within 
joint commands. The committee supported this expansion of 
opportunities for reserve component flag and general officers 
in previous recommendations to establish general and flag 
officer positions in joint combatant commands and on the joint 
staff which could only be filled by reserve component officers. 
Further, the committee supported the requirement that officers 
serving as chiefs of the reserve components and Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau hold the grade of lieutenant general or 
vice admiral. Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends 
that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau serve in the grade 
of general, expands the number of joint positions at the grade 
of lieutenant general or vice admiral that must be held by a 
reserve component officer, and revises statutes in anticipation 
that a reserve component officer will one day serve as a 
combatant commander.
    The committee is concerned, however, that the career 
development, promotion and assignment systems in operation for 
reserve component officers within each of the military 
services, as well as the joint professional development, 
education, and assignment systems, are inadequate to provide 
sufficient numbers of fully qualified reserve component 
officers for consideration for advancement to and through the 
general and flag officer grades. Resolving that inadequacy is a 
complex task that cannot be met individually by the military 
services, nor can the shortfalls be resolved by Congress. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
the secretaries of the military services, to review the career 
development, promotion, and assignment systems for reserve 
component officers and make the recommendations for change to 
statute and policy that the Secretary deems appropriate to 
accomplish the following:
          (1) Provide a comprehensive, coordinated system for 
        advancement of reserve component officers from colonel, 
        or captain in the Navy, through the general officer 
        grades to the grade of lieutenant general or vice 
        admiral; and,
          (2) Provide a sufficient pool of qualified reserve 
        component officers to be considered for appointment to 
        positions that require or merit the grades of 
        lieutenant general or vice admiral and general or 
        admiral.
    Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide an interim report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and House Committee on Armed Services within one year 
after the date of enactment of this Act, and a final report to 
those committees within two years after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                       Section 1601--Short Title

    The section would provide that this title may be cited as 
the ``National Guard Empowerment Act.''

                   Subtitle A--National Guard Bureau


   Section 1611--Enhancement of Duties and Position of Chief of the 
                         National Guard Bureau

    This section would require that an officer appointed as the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) serve in the grade of 
four-star general and be the principal advisor to the Secretary 
of Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
on National Guard matters. This section would require the 
Secretary to nominate an officer or officers to the President 
for consideration for appointment to the position of CNGB 
within 120 days after enactment of this act. Furthermore, this 
section would designate the CNGB as an advisor on such matters 
to the commander of Northern Command and to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security. This section would also describe the 
appointment process by which officers would be recommended to 
the President for appointment as CNGB.
    In recommending an expanded advisory role for the CNGB, the 
committee has not changed the underlying statutory requirement 
that the CNGB remain an advisor to the secretaries of the Army 
and Air Force, as well as to the chiefs of staff of those 
military services. Furthermore, the committee does not intend 
that either the increased grade or the expanded advisory 
responsibility of the CNGB should alter the status of the Army 
and Air National Guard as reserve components of the Army and 
Air Force. However, the committee does believe that the revised 
duties of the CNGB, as they relate to military assistance to 
civil authorities, include identifying gaps between federal and 
state emergency response capabilities and making 
recommendations on programs and activities of the National 
Guard to address such gaps.

   Section 1612--Establishment of the National Guard Bureau as Joint 
                   Activity of Department of Defense

    This section would make the National Guard Bureau (NGB) a 
joint activity of the Department of Defense. The committee does 
not believe that the designation of the NGB as a joint activity 
should change the relationship of the NGB with the Army and the 
Air Force related to matters pertaining to title 10, United 
States Code, and planning and budgeting for requirements under 
title 32, United States Code.

    Section 1613--Enhancement of Functions of National Guard Bureau

    This section would expand the statutory requirements of the 
National Guard Bureau (NGB) charter to include facilitation and 
coordination with federal agencies, the adjutants general of 
the States, Northern Command, and Joint Forces Command on the 
use of national guard personnel and resources in the conduct of 
operations under the authority of title 32, United States Code, 
or in support of state missions.
    This section would also charge the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of 
the Air Force, to further develop the charter for the NGB, 
ensuring that the charter reflects the full scope of the 
functions and activities of the NGB. As the Secretary of 
Defense develops the charter for the NGB, the committee 
believes it is appropriate for the Secretary to consider the 
full range of activities that the NGB is currently performing, 
as well as those functions that it is reasonable to assume the 
NBG may perform in the future, especially as those duties and 
functions relate to military assistance to civil authorities. 
Some of those functions may include, but not be limited to:
          (1) Assisting the Secretary of Defense and the 
        Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as the 
        Commander, Northern Command, in the validation of the 
        requirements of the several States and Territories with 
        respect to military assistance to civil authorities;
          (2) Facilitating and supporting the training 
        requirements relating to the provision of military 
        assistance to civil authorities;
          (3) Making recommendations to the Secretary of 
        Defense, and to the Secretaries of the Army and Air 
        Force, for the acquisition of equipment, material, and 
        other supplies and services for the provision of 
        military assistance to civil authorities;
          (4) Assisting the Secretary of Defense in preparing 
        the budget materials described in section 1614 of this 
        Act; and
          (5) Administering amounts provided to the National 
        Guard for the provision of military assistance to civil 
        authorities.
    The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense will 
periodically review the charter of the NGB to ensure that it 
accurately reflects the full scope of the functions and 
activities of the NGB, and make modifications to the charter as 
required. Despite these enhancements to NGB functions, the 
committee does not intend for the NGB to assume the 
characteristics of an operational command.

 Section 1614--Requirement for Secretary of Defense to Prepare Annual 
      Plan for Response to Natural Disasters and Terrorist Events

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the commander of U.S. Northern Command and 
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to submit to Congress 
before March 1, 2008, and annually thereafter, a plan for 
coordinating the use of the National Guard and members of the 
armed forces on active duty when responding to natural 
disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. The 
plan would include national planning scenarios for a variety of 
hazards. Additionally, this section would require the plan to 
provide two response contingencies for each national planning 
scenario: one using only members of the National Guard and 
another using both members of the National Guard and members of 
the regular components of the armed forces. This section would 
further require the plan to cover, at a minimum, the following:
          (1) Protocols for the Department of Defense, the 
        National Guard Bureau, and the Governors of the several 
        States to carry out operations in coordination with 
        each other and to ensure that Governors and local 
        communities are properly informed and remain in control 
        in their respective states and communities;
          (2) An identification of operational procedures, 
        command structures, and lines of communication to 
        ensure a coordinated, efficient response to 
        contingencies; and
          (3) An identification of the training and equipment 
        needed for both National Guard personnel and members of 
        the armed forces on active duty to provide military 
        assistance to civil authorities and for other domestic 
        operations to respond to hazards identified in the 
        national planning scenarios.
    Finally, this section would require the National Guard 
Bureau to provide the Secretary of Defense information gathered 
from Governors, adjutant general of States, and other State 
civil authorities responsible for homeland preparation and 
response to natural and man-made disasters.

  Section 1615--Determination of Department of Defense Civil Support 
                              Requirements

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
identify the military-unique capabilities required by the 
military services, including the reserve components, the joint 
commands, and defense agencies, to support civil authorities in 
an incident of national significance or catastrophic incident, 
as those terms are defined by the National Response Plan. The 
section would also require the Secretary to develop and 
implement a plan to provide resources necessary for the 
military services, their reserve components, the joint 
commands, and defense agencies to meet those requirements, as 
well as for any other additional capabilities, and to explain 
the resourcing plan in the materials submitted with the annual 
budget request. Lastly, this section would modify the 
requirement of the Secretary to provide biannual written policy 
guidance to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs by including a 
requirement for guidance on providing support to civil 
authorities.
    The committee expects that Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau will advise the commander of Northern Command, the 
Secretaries of the Air Force and Army, and through the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, 
regarding how the National Guard may help address gaps between 
federal and state emergency response capabilities, particularly 
as the Secretary identifies the resources required by this 
section and develops the plan to meet those requirements.
    The committee believes that it is the responsibility of the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a holistic, 
government-wide system, in accordance with the National 
Response Plan, to respond to an incident of national 
significance or a catastrophic incident. In the development of 
the military-unique capabilities required by this section, the 
committee expects that the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
the Secretary of Defense will work closely together and that 
the military-unique requirements will generally reflect the 
Department of Defense's supporting role in most matters related 
to assistance to civil authorities. The committee believes it 
would be appropriate for the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
the Secretary of Defense to agree on the military-unique 
capabilities required from the Department of Defense as an 
element of the factors the Secretary of Defense uses to 
determine which requirements are validated and incorporated 
into the resourcing plan required by this section.

            Section 1616--Conforming and Clerical Amendments

    This section would make various non-substantive conforming 
and clerical corrections.

         Subtitle B--Additional Reserve Component Enhancements


              Section 1621--United States Northern Command

    This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff to complete a manpower review of the military and 
civilian positions, job descriptions, and assignments within 
U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), to include the position of 
the Commander and Deputy Commander of NORTHCOM itself, and its 
subordinate commands, with the goal of significantly increasing 
the numbers of reserve component personnel assigned or employed 
by NORTHCOM who have experience in planning, training, and 
employing forces for domestic emergency response and military 
assistance to civil authorities. This section would require the 
review to be completed within one year after enactment of this 
Act. The review and any recommendations deemed appropriate by 
the Secretary of Defense would be provided to the Congress 90 
days after the Secretary receives the review.
    The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish protocols and procedures to enable an officer in a 
title 10, United States Code, status or an officer in a title 
32, United States Code, status to command mixed-status forces, 
comprised of units and personnel in both title 10 and title 32 
status, in connection with the training and employment of those 
mixed-status forces during homeland defense missions, domestic 
emergency responses, and military support to civil authorities. 
This section would require that the protocols and procedures 
would include enabling the Commander of NORTHCOM and 
subordinate commanders within the NORTHCOM chain of command, as 
well as the adjutant general of a State, or officers 
subordinate to that adjutant general, to exercise command of 
such mixed status units. In making this recommendation, the 
committee notes that authority already exists within title 32, 
United States Code, to enable command of mixed-status forces 
and that the Army and the Air Force to varying degrees over the 
last decade have used that authority to create and employ such 
mixed status forces. Furthermore, the committee's 
recommendation in section 1624 of this title to expand a 
National Guard officer's ability to command such mixed status 
units is intended to facilitate the establishment of such 
command procedures and protocols. Moreover, the committee 
believes that the establishment of such protocols and 
procedures is a necessary precondition for the eventual 
appointment of a reserve component officer to command NORTHCOM.

                   Section 1622--Council of Governors

    This section would require the President to create a 
bipartisan council of governors to advise the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White 
House Homeland Security Council on matters relating to the 
National Guard and civil support missions.

             Section 1623--Reserve Components Policy Board

    This section would create a Reserve Components Policy Board 
in place of the existing Reserve Forces Policy Board. The board 
would consist of 15 members in the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, appointed from civilian life, to provide the Secretary 
of Defense independent advice and recommendations on 
strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and 
enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the 
reserve components of the United States.

Section 1624--Requirements for Certain High-Level Positions To Be Held 
             by Reserve Component General or Flag Officers

    This section would increase from 10 to 15 the number of 
general and flag officer joint duty positions below the grade 
of lieutenant general or vice admiral that the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff may designate to be filled only by 
reserve component officers. This section would also require the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to designate up to three general 
and flag officer joint duty positions in the grade of 
lieutenant general or vice admiral to be held only by a reserve 
component officer. This section would also specify that one of 
those three positions must be the deputy commander of Northern 
Command (NORTHCOM), unless the Commander, NORTHCOM is a reserve 
component officer. The committee makes this recommendation to 
ensure that there are expanded opportunities for reserve 
component officers to serve at increasing levels of 
responsibility in joint duty positions and commands. 
Furthermore, the committee expects that either the Commander or 
the Deputy Commander of NORTHCOM shall be an officer with 
significant experience in planning, training, and employing 
forces for domestic emergency response and military assistance 
to civil authorities.

   Section 1625--Retirement Age and Years of Service Limitations on 
               Certain Reserve General and Flag Officers

    This section would make adjustments to the retirement ages 
and years of service limitations on certain reserve general and 
flag officers.

 Section 1626--Additional Reporting Requirements Relating to National 
                            Guard Equipment

    This section would add two additional reporting 
requirements to the annual report that the Secretary of Defense 
is required to submit to Congress regarding the equipment of 
the National Guard and reserve components. The first item would 
require a statement of accuracy of the previous inventory 
projection and if that projection was not met, the reasons why. 
The second item would require the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau to certify an inventory from the preceding year for 
equipment items for which funds were appropriated and scheduled 
for procurement, but was not received by the end of that fiscal 
year. The committee believes these two reporting items will add 
greater clarity to the equipment status of the National Guard.

             TITLE XVII--DEFENSE READINESS PRODUCTION BOARD

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee is deeply troubled by the current state of 
readiness of the armed forces. Readiness of Army and Marine 
Corps non-deployed forces falls far short of basic military 
standards. More recently, even the readiness levels of forces 
being deployed to combat theaters have been lacking. The 
Department of Defense has deployed units that did not receive 
significant items of military equipment until several weeks 
after arriving in the combat theater. While readiness problems 
are most severe in the ground forces, the Navy and Air Force 
are not immune to readiness concerns. Furthermore, the National 
Guard's readiness problems are critical and impact not only 
national security, but homeland security as well.
    In the past several years, requirements reviews to address 
readiness shortfalls have occurred primarily in the context of 
preparing war-related supplemental funding requests. This 
approach has limited the services to considering only those 
requirements that can be accomplished readily in a fiscal year, 
and to considering only shortfalls generated primarily by 
contingency operations. By so limiting the analysis, the 
services cannot fully consider their readiness requirements or 
how the country's total industrial base, both defense and non-
defense, could be mobilized to address critical readiness 
requirements as rapidly as possible. These reviews have not 
allowed the services to properly correct readiness problems 
that existed prior to the start of current operations, nor to 
properly consider solutions that would significantly increase 
industrial base capacity to address equipment shortfalls. 
Although the Army, in particular, has done significant work to 
identify funding in its Future Years Defense Program to correct 
equipment shortages, this funding had to fit within the Army's 
limited total obligational authority. It has, by necessity, 
been spread over multiple years--in some cases more than five 
years--and will take even longer to fully execute.
    As a result, under current plans critical readiness 
shortfalls will persist for nearly a decade. Therefore, the 
committee recommends the establishment of a Defense Readiness 
Production Board to act as a dedicated advisory body to the 
Secretary of Defense, focused on identifying and correcting the 
most serious readiness shortfalls. The board would serve to 
elevate the identification and approval of critical readiness 
requirements to a level above the military services, where such 
reviews have been constrained by budget limitations and the 
processes used to formulate them. This title also would provide 
additional funding and create significant new authorities to 
expedite the Department's ability to address the critical 
readiness requirements established by the board.
    The committee believes the significant shortfalls in 
equipment needed for military operations and training should be 
addressed through mobilization of the nation's industrial base. 
The Defense Readiness Production Board would report to the 
Secretary identifiable opportunities in the industrial base to 
increase capacity for equipment repair and rebuild, thereby 
satisfying critical readiness requirements more quickly. The 
capabilities of industry would be harnessed further through a 
broad-based Defense Production Industry Advisory Council that 
would advise the board on industrial-base issues, both inside 
and outside the Department. Furthermore, through the board's 
access to all the Department's readiness reporting structures, 
the Congress would have the benefit of the board's informed 
opinion on the military services' readiness posture and any 
efforts needed to rapidly fill critical readiness requirements 
across all of the military services.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                         Section 1701--Purpose

    This title would establish a Defense Readiness Production 
Board to identify and designate critical readiness 
requirements, to improve utilization of the defense industrial 
base to meet those requirements, and to provide authorities to 
the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military 
departments to address critical readiness requirements.

   Section 1702--Establishment of Defense Readiness Production Board

    This section would establish the Defense Readiness 
Production Board within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 
Board members would be appointed by the Secretary, and the 
members would serve for terms established by the Secretary. The 
board would include representatives from the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, both the civilian and 
military leadership of the military services, and other 
government agencies, as appropriate. The board's membership 
would include representatives of both the active and reserve 
components and would include members with responsibilities for 
depot activities.
    This section would require the board to monitor and assess 
the readiness of the armed forces and designate critical 
readiness requirements. This section would also require the 
board to identify and monitor the capacity of the defense 
industrial base, both inside and outside the Department, to 
monitor the capacity of non-traditional suppliers, and to 
advise the Secretary of opportunities to satisfy critical 
readiness requirements more rapidly. During the period that the 
board is being established, the Secretary of Defense would be 
authorized to designate critical readiness requirements.

        Section 1703--Defense Production Industry Advisory Board

    This section would establish a 12-member Defense Production 
Industry Advisory Council to advise the board on issues 
relating to the industrial base. The council would be appointed 
by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services. The council would include members broadly 
representative of the industrial base, including suppliers of 
materials and non-traditional suppliers.

Sections 1704--Role of Chairman of Board in Certain Reporting Processes

    This section would require the chairman of the board's 
participation in all of the Department's readiness reviews that 
are required by statute to ensure that the board is fully aware 
of the readiness status of the armed forces. This section would 
also require that readiness reports provided to Congress 
include the comments of the board on the information contained 
therein.

           Section 1705--Authority to Use Multiyear Contracts

    This section would authorize the secretary of a military 
department to enter into a multiyear procurement contract 30 
days after providing notice of such contract to Congress, 
provided that the contract would address a critical readiness 
requirement. This authority would be in addition to multiyear 
procurement authority that exists in current law, but would be 
less constrained in that:
          (1) The secretary would not be required to certify 
        that the multiyear procurement contract would achieve 
        substantial savings compared to annual contracts, but 
        would have to certify that the pricing of the contract 
        was fair and reasonable and that enough information was 
        available to make this determination;
          (2) The secretary would not be required to receive 
        specific prior authorization in law in an act other 
        than an appropriations act to enter into a multiyear 
        procurement contract whose value is greater than $500.0 
        million; and
          (3) The secretary would not be required to receive 
        prior authority in an appropriations act to enter into 
        a multiyear procurement contract whose value is greater 
        than $500.0 million.
    This section would limit the use of this authority to 
systems that fulfill a critical readiness requirement. This 
section would also limit the authority to systems which have 
been in full-rate production for at least three years, or have 
previously been approved for a multiyear contract, or are non-
developmental commercial items.
    The committee notes that this section and the succeeding 
sections of this title provide authorities directly to the 
senior leadership of the Department of Defense, rather than to 
the board, in order to maintain consistency in the assignment 
of responsibility for execution of major acquisition programs 
and for making significant funding decisions to the military 
services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The 
committee does not intend for the board to be an acquisition 
organization. Rather, the committee expects the board to be a 
high-level, requirements-setting body focused on the readiness 
problem, an information clearinghouse for essential readiness 
data, and a body capable of advising the Secretary of Defense 
on the capacity of the industrial base to address readiness 
shortfalls.

                    Section 1706--Transfer Authority

    This section would provide transfer authority of $1.0 
billion to the Secretary of Defense to address critical 
readiness requirements. This transfer authority would be in 
addition to other transfer authorities available to the 
Secretary.

 Section 1707--Special Authority for Use of Working Capital Funds for 
                    Critical Readiness Requirements

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 
transfer funds temporarily between Department of Defense 
working capital funds to address a critical readiness 
requirement. This transfer authority would be in addition to 
other transfer authorities available to the Secretary.

                 Section 1708--Strategic Readiness Fund

    This section would authorize a Strategic Readiness Reserve 
Fund of $1.0 billion to fund critical readiness requirements 
identified by the board.

            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 2008. As recommended by the committee, 
Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$21,164,322,000 for construction in support of the active 
forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for 
fiscal year 2008.

           MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

    The Department of Defense (DOD) requested $9,636,295,000 
for military construction, $8,395,004,000 for base realignment 
and closure (BRAC) activities, and $2,931,983,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends 
authorization of $9,631,435,000 for military construction, 
$8,405,004,000 for BRAC activities, and $2,926,483,000 for 
family housing in fiscal year 2008. The committee's 
recommendations are consistent with a total budget authority 
level of $21,164,322,000 for military construction, BRAC, and 
family housing in fiscal year 2008.
    The committee was dissatisfied with the Department's 
decision to defer authorized projects provided in the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (Public Law 
109-364). This decision was unprecedented and is perceived as 
obviating the committee's oversight process. Numerous critical 
mission projects were dismissed and military readiness was 
impacted negatively. This decision by the Department only 
reinforces the committee's view that military construction 
projects should be individually authorized.
    The committee remains committed to ensuring our troops have 
the infrastructure available in the required time to best 
support the assigned mission. To assist in providing responsive 
military construction to the combatant commanders, section 2808 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 
(Public Law 108-136) provided expansive use of operation and 
maintenance funding to support urgent military construction 
requirements of a temporary nature. Unfortunately, the 
committee also notes that the Department has taken liberties in 
waiving the thresholds established in section 2808. The 
committee remains concerned that continued abrogation of this 
limited authority may serve to undermine future use of this 
expedited military construction authority. The committee 
expects use of such authority to be limited and that the vast 
majority of military construction projects and activities to be 
considered in regular order.
    The fiscal year 2008 request for military construction, 
family housing, and BRAC activities represents the highest 
level of facility investment in over twenty years. At this 
level of investment, the Department will find it challenging to 
manage and execute the proposed projects. Considering the large 
value of construction awards in certain localized areas, the 
Department will need to be cognizant of construction industry 
pressures that may adversely affect government contract 
pricing.
    The committee believes that the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request for military construction and family housing is 
inadequate to support military readiness and quality of life 
requirements. For this reason, the committee has once again 
reallocated funds within the requested funding levels to 
provide for additional military construction projects that are 
necessary for military training, operations, or to improve 
living or working conditions for military personnel.
    A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in 
Division B for fiscal year 2008 follows:


                       Section 2001--Short Title

    This section would cite Division B of this Act as the 
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008.''

                            TITLE XXI--ARMY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $4,039,197,000 for Army 
military construction and $1,162,320,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends authorization of 
$3,977,497,000 for military construction and $1,156,320,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2008.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                 Advanced Individual Training Barracks

    The committee believes that there is a direct correlation 
between the service members' quality of life and the condition 
of facilities service members use on a frequent basis. This 
correlation is especially true in the support provided by 
unaccompanied enlisted personnel housing. The committee is 
concerned that insufficient resources are provided in the 
budget submission for the maintenance and recapitalization of 
Army unaccompanied enlisted personnel housing. The committee 
urges the Secretary of the Army to accelerate projects, such as 
the programming and construction of an Advanced Individual 
Training Barracks at Fort Meade, Maryland, in the next Future 
Years Defense Plan.

                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends reduction or elimination of 
funding for several projects contained in the budget request 
for military construction and family housing. These reductions 
include:
    (1) $46,000,000 from the funding amount requested for Phase 
II of an Operations Complex at Eglin Air Force Base. The budget 
request contained $66,000,000 for Phase II, the construction of 
a modified standard design complex for two Special Forces 
Battalions. The committee understands that an environmental 
impact statement is currently under review and is expected to 
be completed in September 2008. This will cause a delay on the 
award of this project. The committee supports authorizing for 
appropriations an amount equivalent to the ability of a 
military department to execute in the year of authorization for 
appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that 
the Department of Defense has exceeded their ability to fully 
expend the funding in fiscal year 2008. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends $20,000,000 to expedite support for this 
critical mission.
    (2) $65,000,000 from the funding amount requested for 
construction of a joint/coalition/interagency headquarters U.S. 
Southern Command. The budget request contained $237,000,000; 
however, the committee believes that the Department has 
exceeded their ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal 
year 2008. Accordingly, the committee recommends $172,000,000 
to support this project.
    (3) $11,000,000 from the funding amount requested for 
Family Housing Operations. The budget request contained 
$743,000,000 for Family Housing Operations to support general 
family housing management of existing assets. The committee 
notes that the Army continues to aggressively pursue 
privatization initiatives and intends to continue this effort 
until almost 99 percent of the on-post, family housing 
inventory has been privatized. This trend continues in fiscal 
year 2008. Continued reliance on Residential Communities 
Initiative should result in a decrease in fiscal support 
associated with Family Housing Operations, yet the budget 
request includes unsubstantiated growth of $67,000,000. 
Furthermore, additional funding was also requested to support 
grow the force initiatives that appears unjustified. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends $732,000,000 to support 
Family Housing Operations.

                          Planning and Design

    The committee recommends that, within the authorized 
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $1,000,000--Medical Parking Garage, Fort Bliss, 
        Texas;
          (2) $1,513,000--Aviation Maintenance Hangar (Phase 
        I), Fort Rucker, Alabama;
          (3) $800,000--Component Rebuild Shop, Anniston, 
        Alabama; and
          (4) $2,500,000--Research Support Operations Center, 
        Fort Detrick, Maryland.

                     Unspecified Minor Construction

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army 
complete the following project:
          (1) $2,900,000--Community Emergency Services 
        Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and
          (2) $1,300,000--Fire and Movement Range, Fort Sill, 
        Oklahoma.

               Wounded Warrior Accessibility Requirements

    The committee is dedicated to ensuring accessible medical 
installations are available to service members that need 
additional medical care and services. Unfortunately, there are 
a multitude of medical facilities that do not meet the minimum 
accessibility requirements required in the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336). The committee is 
also committed to the anti-terrorism/force protection building 
standards that require a strict offset requirement. In some 
instances, these anti-terrorism/force protection standards have 
reduced general and handicapped parking for medical facilities. 
It is critical for the Department of Defense to provide the 
best available care to our wounded warriors, and accessible 
medical facilities are a critical component of this capability. 
The committee urges the Department to accelerate projects, such 
as programming to support accessible parking, for the Fort 
Bliss William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Texas, in the next 
Future Years Defense Plan.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Army 
construction projects for fiscal year 2008. 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 
2008.

      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2008.

          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year 
2008 for the Army. This section would also provide 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 2006 Project

    This section would increase the authorization for a fiscal 
year 2006 military construction project at Fort Bragg, North 
Carolina and appropriate conforming military construction 
amendments.

                            TITLE XXII--NAVY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $2,104,276,000 for Navy 
military construction and $669,733,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends authorization of 
$2,087,516,000 for military construction and $669,733,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2008.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends reduction or elimination of 
funding for several projects contained in the budget request 
for military construction and family housing. These reductions 
include:
    (1) $10,100,000 (Inc 5-7) to acquire land interests and 
construct an outlying landing field. The committee notes that 
the acquisition of an outlying landing field at the Navy's 
preferred outlying landing field location in Washington County, 
North Carolina, has been opposed by Washington County, and 
Beaufort County, North Carolina delegations and will present a 
number of local concerns, including the loss of a significant 
tax base, the reduction of high value agricultural products, 
and a substantial impact to the Pocosin National Wildlife 
Refuge. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
peruse alternative outlying landing field locations that best 
support the deployment of the Super Hornet F/A-18 E/F aircraft. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding to construct 
the outlying landing field.
    (2) $50,000,000 for the construction of a 400-foot 
extension to the existing Kilo wharf. The budget request 
contained $101,900,000 million; however, the committee notes 
that an environmental impact statement is currently under 
review and is expected to be complete in December 2007. This 
will cause a delay on the award of this project. The committee 
supports authorizing for appropriations an amount equivalent to 
the ability of a military department to execute in the year of 
authorization for appropriations. For this project, the 
committee believes that the Department has exceeded their 
ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2008. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends $51,900,000 to expedite 
support for this critical mission.

                        Naval Master Jet Basing

    The committee remains concerned about aviation assets 
stationed on the east coast of the United States and the 
worsening encroachment of some naval aviation installations. 
This encroachment was addressed by the Base Realignment and 
Closure (BRAC) 2005 Commission direction to the Commonwealth of 
Virginia and local governments adjacent to Naval Air Station 
(NAS) Oceana, Virginia, to implement certain encroachment 
buffer provisions. If the required actions were not taken, the 
BRAC 2005 Commission directed that the master jet base mission 
be realigned from NAS Oceana to Cecil Field, Florida, provided 
the communities surrounding Cecil Field took several specific 
supporting actions. Unfortunately, neither the Virginia nor the 
Florida State and local governments took the required actions, 
leaving the same unsatisfactory situation in place.
    The situation is compounded by continuing complaints about 
aviation jet noise by a vocal minority of citizens in the 
Hampton Roads, Virginia area, as well as the Navy's difficulty 
in securing unencroached land suitable for an outlying land 
field that would ameliorate the effects of encroachment near 
Naval Alternate Landing Field Fentress.
    The committee further notes the BRAC 2005 Commission 
required that the Secretary of Defense review the offer of the 
State of Florida to reoccupy Cecil Field and compare this 
review against any plan to build a new master jet base at any 
other location. Even though the committee understands the 
Secretary did not undertake this review since the State of 
Florida withdrew Cecil Field from consideration, the committee 
believes that other alternatives should be explored in light of 
the enduring encroachment at NAS Oceana and consequent impacts 
on fleet readiness.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to 
assess the viability and cost of relocating the east coast 
master jet base to another location if the Secretary determines 
such a study is in the best interest of the Navy; and if such a 
study is made, to submit a report of its assessment and 
recommendations to the congressional defense committees by 
February 1, 2008. At a minimum, these basing alternatives shall 
include, at a minimum, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, 
North Carolina; Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South 
Carolina; Naval Air Station Key West, Florida; Naval Air 
Station Pensacola, Florida; Naval Air Station Meridian, 
Mississippi; and Naval Air Station Kingsville, Texas. The 
analysis shall use the comparative scoring baseline established 
in the ``Master Jet Base Assessment'' of December 9, 2005. If 
the Secretary recommends retaining the master jet base mission 
at NAS Oceana, the Secretary shall also provide an assessment 
on the fleet readiness impacts of that decision, and further 
measures that he will undertake to reduce existing 
encroachment.

                       Planning and Design, Navy

    The committee recommends that, within the authorized 
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $1,200,000--Special Weapons Assessment Facility, 
        Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana; and
          (2) $1,200,000--Dry Dock #3, Portsmouth Naval 
        Shipyard, Portsmouth, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Navy 
construction projects for fiscal year 2008. 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 
2008.

      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2008.

          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year 
2008 for the Navy. This section would also provide an overall 
limit on the amount the Navy may spend on military construction 
projects.

Section 2205--Repeal of Authorization for Construction of Navy Outlying 
            Landing Field, Washington County, North Carolina

    This section would amend section 2201(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 
108-136), as amended, and section 2201(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 
108-375), as amended, to repeal the authority for construction 
of an outlying landing field.

                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $912,109,000 for Air Force 
military construction and $1,051,082,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,009,109,000 for military construction and $1,051,082,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2008.

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                     Planning and Design, Air Force

    The committee recommends that, within the authorized 
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $640,000--Security Forces Operations Building, 
        Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; and
          (2) $522,000--Addition to Fitness Center, Goodfellow 
        Air Force Base, Texas.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force 
construction projects for fiscal year 2008. 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 2008.

      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2008.

        Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year 
2008 for the Air Force. This section would also provide an 
overall limit on the amount the Air Force may spend on military 
construction projects.

  Section 2305--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2006 Project

    This section would increase the authorization for a fiscal 
year 2006 military construction project at MacDill Air Force 
Base, Florida and appropriate conforming military construction 
amendments.

                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,885,512,000 for defense 
agency military construction (including chemical weapon 
demilitarization construction) and $48,848,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2008. In addition, the budget request 
contained $220,689,000 for activities related to prior base 
realignment and closure (BRAC) activities and $8,174,315,000 
for activities related to the 2005 round of BRAC.
    The committee recommends authorization of $1,799,112,000 
for military construction and $48,848,000 for family housing 
for defense agencies for fiscal year 2008. In addition, the 
committee recommends authorization of $230,689,000 for prior 
BRAC round activities and $8,174,315,000 for BRAC 2005 
activities.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                        BRAC 2005 Implementation

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to monitor the implementation of recommendations for the 
2005 round of realignments and closures of military 
installations made pursuant to section 2914 of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and provide an annual 
report on progress obtained no later than February 1. A final 
report shall be provided as to the lessons learned from the 
2005 round no later than one year following the end of the Base 
Realignment and Closure implementation period provided for by 
section 2904(a)(5) of the Act.

                   Explanation of Funding Adjustments

    The committee recommends reduction or elimination of 
funding for projects contained in the budget request for 
military construction and family housing. These reductions 
include:
    (1) $84,300,000 for the replacement of fuel storage 
facilities at Point Loma Annex. The budget request contained 
$140,000,000 to replace the existing fuel storage, 
distribution, and support facilities at the Defense Fuel Supply 
Point.
    The committee supports authorizing for appropriations an 
amount equivalent to the ability of a military department to 
execute in the year of authorization for appropriations. For 
this project, the committee believes that the Department of 
Defense has exceeded their ability to fully expend the funding 
in fiscal year 2008.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $55,700,000, a 
reduction of $84,300,000, to support expediting this project.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized defense 
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2008. 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--Authorized Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded 
        Through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005

    This section would authorize the amount for base 
realignment and closure activities and projects for fiscal year 
2008.

    Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

    This section would authorize specific amounts for each line 
item contained in the defense agencies' budgets for fiscal year 
2008. This section would also provide 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 $201,400,000 for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) 
for fiscal year 2008. The committee recommends authorization of 
$201,400,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2008.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of 
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act 
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for 
construction previously financed by the United States.

          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

    This section would authorize $201,400,000 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 $695,201,000 for military 
construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 
2008. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 
2008 of $758,201,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard.....................................    $425,891,000
Air National Guard......................................    $111,717,000
Army Reserve............................................    $133,084,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................     $59,950,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................     $27,559,000

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                   Niagara Air Reserve Base, New York

    The committee believes that timely infrastructure 
improvements should be made available to support expanding, 
critical Explosive Ordnance Disposal mission elements and 
should be provided priority funding in the Future Years Defense 
Program (FYDP). Furthermore, the committee also believes that 
the construction of an Armed Forces Regional Readiness Center, 
necessitates the construction of an expanded dining facility to 
meet this increased demand. Therefore, the committee urges the 
Secretary of the Air Force to accelerate projects, such as the 
programming to design and construct an explosive ordnance 
disposal facility and a dining facility at Niagara Air Reserve 
Base, New York, in the next FYDP.

                    Planning and Design, Air Reserve

    The committee recommends that, within the authorized 
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $972,000--Joint Deployment Processing Facility, 
        March Air Reserve Base, Riverside, California.

                Planning and Design, Army National Guard

    The committee recommends that, within the authorized 
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $621,000--Combined Arms Training Facility, Camp 
        Ripley, Little Falls, Minnesota;
          (2) $1,366,000--Fleet Maintenance Shop, Arden Hill, 
        Minnesota;
          (3) $2,727,000--Combined Support Maintenance 
        Facility, Camp Smith, New York;
          (4) $2,705,000--Training Facility Phase V, Camp 
        Gruber, Braggs, Oklahoma; and
          (5) $152,000--Readiness Center, Tacoma National Guard 
        Readiness Center, Tacoma, Washington.

          Planning and Design, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve

    The committee recommends that, within the authorized 
amounts for planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects:
          (1) $310,000--Marine Corps Reserve Center, Windy 
        Hill, Marietta, Georgia.

          Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army 
complete the following project:
          (1) $1,964,000--Fire Station, Silverbell Army 
        Heliport, Marana, Arizona.

                         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 2008. 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, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2011, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to 
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated 
before October 1, 2010, or the date of enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2011, whichever is later.

 Section 2702--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2005 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorization for certain 
fiscal year 2005 military construction projects until October 
1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2009, whichever is 
later.

 Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2004 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorization for certain 
fiscal year 2004 military construction projects until October 
1, 2008, or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2009, whichever is 
later.

                      Section 2704--Effective Date

    This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, 
XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act shall take effect on October 1, 
2007, or upon enactment of this Act, whichever is later.

                    TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                             Carrier Basing

    The committee understands that the Navy has unused capacity 
at Naval Station Mayport, Florida, and is conducting an 
environmental impact statement on the feasibility of stationing 
additional surface ships, including a nuclear aircraft carrier, 
at Naval Station Mayport. The committee believes that Naval 
Station Mayport is an important defense asset that should be 
fully utilized. The committee is concerned that Naval Station 
Mayport has not previously served as homeport for a nuclear 
carrier and does not contain the considerable specialized 
infrastructure necessary to sustain and maintain such a vessel. 
Therefore, before the Secretary of the Navy recommends the 
stationing of a nuclear carrier at Naval Station Mayport, the 
committee directs the Secretary to determine the full range of 
costs associated with the construction of nuclear 
infrastructure and port improvements at Naval Station Mayport 
necessary to support a nuclear carrier, including a detailed 
assessment of alternative sites, and submit the results of this 
analysis to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 
2007.

          Department of Defense Energetics Center Vision 2020

    The committee notes that the Base Realignment and Closure 
2005 Commission confirmed the Department of Defense's 
designation of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head, 
Maryland, as the energetics center for the Department of 
Defense. Despite this recommendation, the demonstrated 
importance of energetics research and construction projects to 
recapitalize the facilities at Indian Head are not included 
within the Department of the Navy's most recent Future Years 
Defense Program (FYDP). The committee strongly encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy to fully support the ``Department of 
Defense Energetics Center Vision 2020'' recapitalization plan 
at Indian Head by restoring recapitalization projects to the 
FYDP and including them in future budget requests.

                       Energy Conservation Forum

    The committee is aware that, in the spring of 2006, the 
Secretary of Defense initiated and continues to lead a monthly 
interagency seminar program known as the Energy Conservation 
Forum. The committee is very encouraged that other departments 
and agencies such as the Department of Energy, the Department 
of State, the Department of Agriculture, the Environment 
Protection Agency, and the intelligence community have agreed 
to actively participate in this important initiative.
    The committee acknowledges the considerable efforts of the 
Energy Conservation Forum and continues to support the 
Secretary's interagency energy education program, which 
includes the energy seminar program and energy interagency 
networks. The committee recognizes that the energy security 
challenges now faced within the Department of Defense, the U.S. 
Government as a whole, and the Nation cannot be solved by a 
single agency. The committee strongly believes that all federal 
agencies must work together to achieve necessary national 
energy objectives of conservation and efficiency. Therefore, 
the committee encourages the Secretary to continue efforts, 
such as the Energy Conservation Forum, to enhance information 
interchange as a necessary first step in addressing the complex 
energy issues facing this Nation.

                   F-35 Basing and Training Strategy

    The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint 
Strike Fighter Program) is the Department of Defense's focal 
point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft 
weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our 
allies. Currently, the F-35 is in the system development and 
demonstration phase and is expected to meet initial operational 
capability in fiscal year 2012 for the Marine Corps, 2013 for 
the Air Force and 2015 for the Navy.
    The committee supports the 2005 Base Realignment and 
Closure selection of Eglin Air Force Base (Florida) as the F-35 
Initial Joint Training Site and also believes that the joint 
nature of this site will enhance Department of Defense aviation 
capabilities. In the determination of future basing decisions, 
the committee expects the service secretaries to screen assets 
from other services and fully use existing capabilities to best 
support our aviation assets. The following criteria should be 
included in the overall basing criteria:
          (1) Cost;
          (2) Geographical dispersal goals to support Homeland 
        Defense and combatant commander objectives;
          (3) Proximity, volume, and capability of training 
        ranges and airspace;
          (4) Accessible auxiliary training locations;
          (5) Installation capabilities; and
          (6) Other considerations such as climate and 
        encroachment.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2008. The report shall provide the basing criteria for 
screening of Department of Defense F-35 assets. The committee 
also supports a comprehensive training strategy and directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 2008, which shall address the 
training requirements for variant, mission, and service-
specific certification of combat mission ready status of United 
States and allied pilots who have completed initial joint 
training.

                           Land Use Planning

    The committee believes that there are several military 
installations that have not grown commensurate with the local 
communities, causing land use constraints on military 
operations. This is particularly acute in the San Diego, 
California region. The committee further believes that the 
Department of Defense has not provided sufficient emphasis on 
use of land use planning tools that the committee has provided 
including Enhanced Use Leasing (section 2667 of Title X), 
Conservation and Cultural Activities (section 2694 of Title X), 
Conveyance of Property at Military Installations That Are 
Closed or Realigned To Support Military Construction (section 
2869 of title X) and other real estate authorities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare a report and submit to the congressional defense 
committees by February 1, 2008, on land use planning 
implemented by the Department of Defense that optimizes 
available real estate. This report will be focused on the San 
Diego area and include, at a minimum, land use planning tools 
used during the 2007 fiscal year at each military installation, 
a description of each project, the funding sources used to 
support the conveyances, opportunities to partner with other 
federal agencies, and recommendations for additional authority 
to optimize real estate commensurate with local community 
growth. The Department should prepare this comprehensive review 
of the San Diego, California area to ensure that effective land 
use planning is being implemented and review opportunities for 
continued consolidations across the Department.
    The committee also directs the Comptroller General to 
review the report by the Secretary of Defense, and provide 
separate analysis of the Department's use of land use planning 
authorities, with particular attention to the San Diego area, 
to the congressional defense committees by August 1, 2008.

                Military Construction Pricing Inequities

    The committee remains concerned that the current pricing 
models used by the Department of Defense understate the overall 
cost of the military construction program. While the committee 
understands that the use of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) inflation factors for construction has understated the 
construction industry by 10 percent over the last two years, 
the committee believes that this has the concurrent effect of 
reducing the scope of the entire military construction program. 
Although the committee understands that the OMB cost factors 
used to support the fiscal year 2008 budget request are 
coincidently close to industry standards, the committee remains 
concerned about the fluctuation of the account.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit an analysis of the current inflation factors as they 
compare to industry cost factors to the congressional defense 
committees by February 1, 2008. This analysis shall include a 
review of the program over the last five years, the methods 
that the Department of Defense employs to overcome a diminished 
program, an analysis of available industry metrics, and 
recommendations that the Department proposes to reduce the 
fluctuation of the military construction account.

                Military Family Housing Leases in Korea

    The committee strongly supports the United States-Republic 
of Korea alliance transformation process and encourages the 
continued development of this plan. Using the Yongsan 
Relocation Plan and the Land Partnership Plan as a roadmap, 
this plan will relocate Unites States Forces Korea 
Headquarters, and other Army activities, and will consolidate 
104 camps and stations into two enduring, main operating 
locations. Furthermore, the Army is projected to increase the 
command sponsored tours from 1,665 to 4,300, creating a more 
stable, productive workforce capable of supporting a dynamic 
forward presence.
    In the fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Department of 
Defense proposed raising the cost limits for family housing 
leases in Korea. Unfortunately, this proposal also triggers 
direct spending that needs to be offset with a corresponding 
decrease in an entitlement or other direct spending category.
    Without prejudice for this important initiative, the 
committee is very limited in the direct spending authority 
available to be used as an offset to support an increase in 
United States Forces Korea family housing units. The committee 
looks forward to working with the Department to determine a 
suitable offset to support this endeavor. If this offset cannot 
be identified, the committee recommends the Department provide 
sufficient military construction funding in next year's budget 
submission to support this relocation plan.

                 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

    The committee is aware that renewable energy projects are 
often not as cost effective as non-renewable energy sources. 
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to consider 
means for leveraging funds to further enable new renewable 
energy projects. In particular, the committee understands that 
Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) are typically 
executed with operation and maintenance funds, while the Energy 
Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) is executed with 
military construction funds. The committee encourages the 
Department to consider using an ESPC in combination with an 
ECIP, should it provide additional opportunity for renewable 
energy projects.

  Report on United States Military Bases and Facilities in Afghanistan

    The committee is concerned about the overall lack of 
information from the Department of Defense (DOD), the military 
services, and the U.S. Central Command on the nature, scope, 
and costs of United States military bases and facilities in 
Afghanistan. Some of the facilities are constructed through 
support contracts using operation and maintenance funding, 
while others are built using traditional military construction 
appropriations or supplemental funding, all of which makes 
congressional oversight of the accounting for the costs of 
these facilities difficult. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Comptroller General to undertake a review of the following:
          (1) DOD's strategy for United States bases and the 
        determination matrix as to the types of facilities in 
        Afghanistan;
          (2) NATO cost shares associated with DOD's mission; 
        and
          (3) DOD's projected costs for the construction and 
        operation of United States bases in Afghanistan.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a 
report containing the results of this review to the 
congressional defense committees by February 15, 2008.

Responsiveness of the Department of Defense to Congressional Reporting 
                              Requirements

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts 
to meet its energy conservation and energy security goals. 
However, the committee is concerned that the Department has 
failed to submit required reports to the congressional defense 
committees regarding energy initiatives, goals, and future 
plans. Specifically, section 357 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) 
required a report on the Department's use of biodiesel and 
ethanol fuel that was due in September 2006, and section 2851 
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) required a report on 
energy performance goals for transportation systems, support 
systems, utilities, and infrastructure and facilities that was 
due along with the fiscal year 2008 budget request. While the 
committee supports providing the Department the tools it needs 
to implement energy efficiency and security programs, the 
committee fully expects the Department to be responsive to the 
committee's requests for information to allow the committee to 
carry out its oversight responsibilities.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes


    Section 2801--Temporary Authority to Support Revitalization of 
 Department of Defense Laboratories through Unspecified Minor Military 
                         Construction Projects

    This section would authorize the Department of Defense 
(DOD) to use expanded military construction authorities to 
rapidly adapt the DOD's laboratory facilities to meet emerging 
challenges.

  Section 2802--Increased Threshold for Congressional Notification of 
   Leases for Military Family Housing Facilities in a Foreign Country

    This section would raise the dollar threshold for 
congressional notification of leases for military family 
housing facilities in a foreign country, as well as, for real 
property related to family housing facilities in a foreign 
country.

     Section 2803--Limitations on Use of Alternative Authority for 
 Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing for Privatization of 
                      Temporary Lodging Facilities

    This section would authorize an Army lodging privatization 
pilot project at a specified list of Army installations. 
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of the 
Army and the Comptroller General to submit a report on the 
effectiveness of the privatization program and a recommendation 
for the continuance and expansion of the privatization program 
by June 1, 2009.

  Section 2804--Expansion of Authority to Exchange Reserve Component 
                               Facilities

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
exchange non-excess, reserve component real property and 
facilities for other federal agencies real property and 
facilities of equal fair market value.

   Section 2805--Extension of Authority to Accept Cash Equalization 
           Payments for Reserve Component Facility Exchanges

    This section would extend the temporary authority to make 
or accept cash equalization payments in connection with 
exchanges of reserve component facilities for three years.

  Section 2806--Expansion to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for 
            Construction Projects Outside the United States

    This section would extend through fiscal year 2008 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 use operation and 
maintenance funds to construct the facilities necessary for 
temporary operational requirements related to a declaration of 
war, national emergency, or contingency. This section would 
require advance notification to the congressional defense 
committees and eliminate the quarterly reporting requirements.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


   Section 2811--Continued Consolidation of Real Property Provisions 
                       Without Substantive Change

    This section would move section 2677 of title 10, United 
States Code, into section 2663 of title 10, United States Code, 
as part of a continuing effort to consolidate and better 
organize the real property provisions of chapter 159 of title 
10, United States Code.

    Section 2812--Cooperative Agreement Authority for Management of 
   Cultural Resources on Certain Sites Outside Military Installations

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and 
the secretaries of the military departments to enter into 
cooperative agreements with State, local, or tribal governments 
and other entities for the preservation, management, 
maintenance, and improvement of cultural resources located 
outside military installations and for the conduct of research 
regarding cultural resources. The authority to enter into these 
cooperative agreements would enable the Department of Defense 
to expend funds related to activities off the installation to 
mitigate the adverse effects related to undertakings on 
cultural resources on an installation. This alternative 
mitigation could be used for compliance with section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665). 
Currently, mitigation authority is limited to such cooperative 
agreements related to cultural resources on military 
installations.

 Section 2813--Agreements To Limit Encroachments and Other Constraints 
             on Military Training, Testing, and Operations

    This section would clarify that the Department of Defense 
may contribute resources toward the costs of managing natural 
resources on parcels of land, in which an interest has been 
acquired, where there is a demonstrated need to manage such 
resources to effectively avoid, limit or relieve restrictions 
to testing, training or operations. This section would also 
clarify the method of determining the limitation on the portion 
of acquisition costs that a military department may pay.

   Section 2814--Expansion to All Military Departments of Army Pilot 
    Program for Purchase of Certain Municipal Services for Military 
                             Installations

    This section would enable the Department of Defense 
temporary authority to enter into cooperative agreements with 
servicing municipalities for public work services. This 
authority would expand a Department of the Army pilot program 
to the other military services and extend the current 
expiration date to September 30, 2012.

    Section 2815--Retention of Proceeds From Enhanced Use Leases at 
                   Selfridge Air National Guard Base

    This section would direct proceeds from an enhanced use 
lease at Selfridge Air National Guard Base be fully expended at 
that installation.

  Section 2816--Prohibition on Commercial Flights Into Selfridge Air 
                          National Guard Base

    This section would prohibit the use of Selfridge Air 
National Guard Base by commercial service aircraft.

                Subtitle C--Base Realignment and Closure


Section 2821--Transfer of Funds from Department of Defense Base Closure 
          Account 2005 to Department of Defense Housing Funds

    This section would authorize the transfer of funds from the 
Department of Defense's Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 
account to the Department's Family Housing Improvement Fund, 
enabling the use of the privatization authorities to meet the 
family housing requirements associated with the BRAC 2005 
recommendations. This section would also allow similar 
transfers of funds to the Military Unaccompanied Housing 
Improvement Fund.

                      Subtitle D--Land Conveyances


Section 2831--Conditions on Acquisition of Land for Expansion of Pinon 
                     Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado

    This section would provide authority to the Department of 
the Army to acquire additional land at Pinon Canyon Maneuver 
Site, Colorado. Land acquisition and leasing would be used to 
the maximum extent with willing sellers and the use of eminent 
domain would be established as a last resort land acquisition 
method. Access to cultural resources and cattle grazing would 
be allowed to the maximum extent possible.

     Section 2832--Grant of Easement, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to grant the Mid Bay Bridge Authority an easement for a roadway 
connecting Mid Bay Bridge to Florida State Highway 85.

   Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Lynn Haven Fuel Depot, Lynn Haven, 
                                Florida

    This section would convey 40 acres at the Lynn Haven Fuel 
Depot, Lynn Haven, Florida, to Florida State University for the 
purpose of permitting the University to develop the property as 
a new satellite campus. The Secretary of the Air Force may 
accept reduced tuition rates or scholarships as in kind 
consideration for the value of the property. The Secretary of 
the Air Force should work closely with the University to 
determine an appropriate repayment timeline that is agreeable 
to both parties.

     Section 2834--Additional Conditions on Lease of Property for 
   Headquarters Facility for United States Southern Command, Florida

    This section would protect the substantial military 
construction investment on land owned by the State of Florida 
and ensures that the United States retains reversionary 
interest in case the Southern Command decides to relocate 
during the lease period.

   Section 2835--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Former Nike Missile Site, 
                         Grosse Isle, Michigan

    This section would clarify the Department of Defense's 
liability to expend formerly used defense sites funding to 
support the remediation of the former Nike Missile site for use 
as habitat for fish and wildlife and as a recreational property 
for outdoor education and environmental education.

             Section 2836--Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey approximately 200 acres at Fort Hood, Texas, to the City 
of Copperas County, Texas, for the purpose of providing 
arterial traffic relief for the installation and the local 
community.

     Section 2837--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Fort Belvoir, Virginia

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
exchange real property with the Administrator of the General 
Services Administration. In consideration of transferring up to 
72.23 acres of real property in Springfield, Virginia, the 
General Services Administration would receive an equivalent 
fair market value of Army real property in the national capital 
region. This transfer is expected to alleviate traffic 
associated with the increase in support personnel expected at 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

Section 2838--Modification of Conveyance Authority, Marine Corps Base, 
                       Camp Pendleton, California

    This section would reinstate California State law 
considerations to the deliberative process used in determining 
the final disposition of a toll road for four and one half 
miles across the northern portion of Camp Pendleton.

                      Subtitle E--Energy Security


    Section 2851--Repeal of Congressional Notification Requirement 
Regarding Cancellation Ceiling for Department of Defense Energy Savings 
                         Performance Contracts

    This section would repeal section 2853 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364), which lowered the Department's notification 
ceiling to $7.0 million, and would thereby restore the 
notification ceiling to $10.0 million, consistent with the 
ceiling established for all other government agencies in 
section 8287 (a)(2)(D)(iii) of title 42, United States Code. 
The committee believes it is reasonable for the Department of 
Defense to have the same congressional notification requirement 
regarding cancellation ceilings for Energy Savings Performance 
Contracts as the rest of the federal government.

Section 2852--Report on Opportunities for Leveraging Funds Available to 
 the Department of Defense and to the States to Prevent Disruption in 
              Event of Electric Grid or Pipeline Failures

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to report to the 
congressional defense committees on approaches to leverage 
Department of Defense resources with State System Benefit Trust 
Funds, Clean Air Act State Implementation Funds, and State 
Homeland Security Critical Infrastructure Grants as a way to 
accelerate hardening critical functions on and around military 
and security facilities to prevent disruption in the event of 
major electric grid or natural gas or petroleum pipeline 
failures. This section would require the report to be submitted 
within 180 days after enactment of this Act.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Section 2861--Revised Deadline for Transfer of Arlington Naval Annex to 
                      Arlington National Cemetery

    This section would provide more flexibility to the 
Department of Defense to account for the most recent 
projections of the Arlington National Cemetery out-year 
requirements, as well as realignments mandated under the Base 
Realignment and Closure 2005 process.

   Section 2862--Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Air Force Memorial to 
                      Department of the Air Force

    This section would transfer the Air Force Memorial and the 
site upon which it is constructed to the administrative 
jurisdiction, custody and control of the Secretary of the Air 
Force and empower the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into 
agreements with appropriate organizations to provide for the 
management and maintenance of the Air Force Memorial.

   Section 2863--Establishment of National Military Working Dog Team 
              Monument on Suitable Military Installations

    This section would grant the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to allow a non-profit group to establish a national 
monument honoring the service of U. S. military working dogs at 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, or another location of the Secretary's 
choosing.

  Section 2864--Naming Housing Facility at Fort Carson, Colorado, in 
 Honor of The Honorable Joel Hefley, a Former Member of the U.S. House 
                           of Representatives

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
designate one of the military family housing areas or 
facilities constructed on Fort Carson, Colorado, using housing 
privatization authorities provided by subchapter IV of chapter 
169 of title 10, United States Code in honor of The Honorable 
Joel Hefley, former member of the U.S. House of 
Representatives.

   Section 2865--Naming Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center at Rock 
Island, Illinois, in Honor of The Honorable Lane Evans, a Former Member 
                  of the U.S. House of Representatives

    This section would designate the Navy and Marine Corps 
reserve center at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, as the ``Lane 
Evans Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center.''

Section 2866--Naming of Research Laboratory at Air Force Rome Research 
Site, Rome, New York, in Honor of The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert, a 
           Former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

    This section would designate the new laboratory building at 
the Air Force Rome Research Site, Rome, New York, as the 
``Sherwood Boehlert Center of Excellence for Information, 
Science and Technology.''

   Section 2867--Naming of Administration Building at Joint Systems 
Manufacturing Center, Lima, Ohio, in Honor of The Honorable Michael G. 
      Oxley, a Former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

    This section would designate a new administrative building 
at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, Lima, Ohio, as the 
``Michael G. Oxley Administration and Technology Center.''

 Section 2868--Naming the Logistics Automation Training Facility, Army 
   Quartermaster Center and School, Fort Lee, Virginia, in honor of 
                      General Richard H. Thompson

    This section would designate the Logistics Automation 
Training Facility, Army Quartermaster and School, Fort Lee, 
Virginia, as the ``General Richard H. Thompson Building.''

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

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $15.8 billion for atomic 
energy defense activities. Of this amount, $9.4 billion is for 
the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
and $6.4 billion is for environmental and other defense 
activities. The committee recommends $16.0 billion, an increase 
of $150.0 million above the request.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                National Nuclear Security Administration


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $9.5 billion for the National 
Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2008. The 
committee recommends $9.5 billion, the amount of the request.

                           Weapons Activities


Future Nuclear Weapons Stockpile and Complex

            Reliable Replacement Warhead
    The budget request contained $88.8 million within Directed 
Stockpile Work for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) 
program.
    As established in the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the primary objectives 
of the RRW program are to ``increase the reliability, safety, 
and security of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile,'' 
and ``further reduce the likelihood of the resumption of 
underground nuclear weapons testing.'' Public Law 109-163 
further established that the RRW program should aim to ``remain 
consistent with basic design parameters by including, to the 
maximum extent feasible . . . components that are well 
understood or are certifiable without the need to resume 
underground nuclear weapons testing.''
    The committee believes it is too soon to judge whether the 
RRW program can achieve these objectives, and notes that 
findings from two recent National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) studies regarding the aging of pits 
indicate that a critical component of our nuclear weapons may 
have a longer lifespan than previously recognized. In light of 
these findings, the committee believes the focus of the RRW 
program during fiscal year 2008 should be the analysis 
necessary to describe in detail how the RRW program will 
achieve these objectives.
    In tandem with this analysis, the committee believes the 
reuse of existing pits warrants examination. The committee 
notes that the reuse of pits in remanufactured warheads could 
yield greater confidence in the reliability of such warheads, 
as the pits would have been previously tested. Such increased 
confidence should reduce the likelihood that nuclear tests 
would be required and minimize the need for newly manufactured 
pits. The committee has included a provision in this title that 
requires the Administrator for Nuclear Security to assess the 
feasibility of remanufacturing warheads using existing pits in 
the RRW program.
    The committee also notes that an independent panel of 
experts commissioned by the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science (AAAS) concluded in an April 2007 report 
that ``although the RRW could act as a catalyst for modernizing 
the complex, the process would present significant 
challenges.'' The panel also concluded that a ``fundamental 
question must be answered in developing a long-range plan for 
the nation's nuclear weapons complex . . . what is the long-
term stockpile required by the Department of Defense, and how 
should the Department of Energy size the capability of its 
complex to meet those requirements?''
    The committee supports establishing clear nuclear weapons 
requirements before committing to the RRW program, and sees the 
planned Phase 2a design review and cost study as consistent 
with this approach. Further, the committee believes the RRW 
program should only be pursued if it: truly reduces or 
eliminates the need for nuclear testing; leads to substantial 
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; reduces the reliance of the United States on 
nuclear weapons; reduces the long-term cost of maintaining the 
nuclear weapons complex; and increases nuclear security and 
decreases the risk of unauthorized launch or detonation.
    The committee will monitor the RRW program closely to 
assess NNSA progress toward achieving these objectives. In 
addition, the committee expects the report on RRW required by 
the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163) and the results of the planned Phase 2a 
study to play a crucial role in clarifying the degree to which 
the RRW program can reach its stated goals.
    The committee recommends $68.8 million, a decrease of $20.0 
million, for Phase 2a study activities only for RRW.
            Consolidated Plutonium Center
    The budget request contained $24.9 million for the 
Consolidated Plutonium Center (CPC), which is described as an 
element of the Complex 2030 transformation plan. The committee 
supports the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) 
effort to modernize the nuclear weapons complex, but finds that 
construction of a CPC is only required if the United States 
moves toward large-scale production of pits. The committee does 
not believe the need for such large scale processing has been 
established.
    The committee notes that a capability to manufacture 
limited quantities of pits has been established at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory (LANL), and an expansion of this capability 
is supported in the budget request. The committee believes this 
capability, coupled with proposed funding for the Chemistry and 
Metallurgy Research Building Replacement (CMRR)-Nuclear 
Facility, is sufficient for current stockpile needs.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee directs the NNSA to 
examine the feasibility of remanufacturing warheads with 
existing pits. Such remanufacture would reduce the requirement 
for new pit production, and could eliminate the need for a 
large new pit production facility. The committee concludes that 
funding for the CPC is premature while the feasibility of a pit 
reuse approach for RRW is examined. The committee recommends no 
funding for the CPC.
            B61 Life Extension Program
    The budget request contained $63.1 million for the B61 Life 
Extension Program (LEP) account within Directed Stockpile Work. 
The committee notes that the budget describes these funds as 
supporting the current LEP, identified as Alt 357, Alt 358/359, 
but National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) planning 
documents indicate commencement of a Phase 6.2/6.2a study for 
an additional B61 LEP (Alt 365/366) in fiscal year 2008.
    The committee views the initiation of a new B61 LEP (Alt 
365/366) as unwarranted while the NNSA examines the feasibility 
of pit reuse for the remanufacture of warheads. The committee 
therefore recommends $58.9 million, a decrease of $4.2 million 
for the B61 life extension program, and directs the 
Administrator for Nuclear Security to make no funds available 
for commencement of the new B61 LEP.

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign

    The budget request contained $412.3 million for the 
Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High Yield 
Campaign, a decrease of $38.9 million from the fiscal year 2007 
request.
    ICF target design, production, and assembly activities are 
critical activities in support of the ICF Ignition and High 
Yield Campaign target of first ignition in 2010. The committee 
notes, however, that the fiscal year 2008 budget request for 
this campaign is insufficient to fulfill the National Nuclear 
Security Administration's (NNSA) commitment in the National 
Ignition Campaign Execution Plan and sustain the baseline 
schedule to deliver a credible ignition campaign starting in 
2010.
    The committee recommends $427.4 million, an increase of 
$15.1 million, for target design, production and assembly 
consistent with the National Ignition Campaign Execution Plan, 
as well as risk mitigation activities.

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign

    The budget request contained $585.7 million for the 
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign, a decrease of 
$32.2 million from the fiscal year 2007 request.
    The committee urges NNSA to reassess its high-performance 
computing acquisition strategy to ensure the compatibility of 
the acquisition strategy with the objectives of the ASC 
Campaign and the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
    The committee recommends $590.7 million, an increase of 
$5.0 million in the ASC Campaign, to address the increased 
demand for computational resources to support National Ignition 
Facility experiments and other Stockpile Stewardship 
priorities.

Engineering Campaign

    The budget request contained $80.6 million for the Enhanced 
Surveillance subprogram within the Engineering Campaign.
    Enhanced Surveillance provides analysis to support weapon 
replacement and refurbishment decisions, and to develop 
advanced diagnostics and predictive capabilities for early 
identification and assessment of stockpile aging concerns. The 
committee notes that the request is below the fiscal year 2007 
request, despite a backlog in the surveillance program and 
despite the critical nature of these activities.
    The committee recommends $84.6 million, an increase of $4.0 
million, to bolster the ability of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to make critical stockpile maintenance 
and modernization decisions.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

    The budget request contained $1.7 billion for Readiness and 
Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF).
    The committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2008 
request contained a $23.6 million decrease from the fiscal year 
2007 request for RTBF, and a $44.5 million decrease from the 
fiscal year 2007 request in the Operations of Facilities 
account. At this funding level, the committee understands that 
multiple facilities in the weapons complex will be unable to 
meet their base programs for maintenance of facilities. The 
committee encourages the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) to include in future RTBF budget requests 
enough funds to adequately support the maintenance budgets of 
its facilities.
    The committee recommends $111.1 million, an increase of 
$15.0 million for Pantex within the Operations of Facilities 
account for plant infrastructure repair. The committee expects 
this increase to be executed in a manner consistent with the 
priorities of both the site comprehensive plan and the Complex 
2030 transformation plan prepared by the NNSA as required by 
section 3111 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
    The committee also recommends $201.1 million, an increase 
of $10.0 million for the Y-12 complex, to include: $5.0 million 
within Construction for Project 06-D-140 for the Uranium 
Processing Facility, and $5.0 million within the Operations of 
Facilities account for plant infrastructure repair, to be 
executed in a manner consistent with the priorities of both the 
site comprehensive plan and the Complex 2030 transformation 
plan prepared by the NNSA as required by section 3111 of the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007 (Public Law 109-364).

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,672.6 million for 
Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs.
    The committee fully supports the goals of NNSA's 
nonproliferation programs. The committee emphasizes, consistent 
with the findings of the 9-11 Commission, that such programs 
are critical to United States national security and must be a 
top national security priority. The committee is therefore 
seriously concerned that lack of effective policy guidance and 
leadership, and programmatic and funding constraints, have 
limited the progress of NNSA and other U.S. nonproliferation 
programs in recent years. The committee believes there must be 
a strong national commitment to reinvigorate these programs, in 
part through increased funding that will accelerate, expand, 
and strengthen existing programs and enable the development of 
new programs and projects.
    The committee is aware that certain NNSA nonproliferation 
programs have in past years encountered impediments to timely 
obligating and executing the full amount of authorized and 
appropriated funds, and that certain programs currently 
encounter such impediments and therefore maintain unobligated 
and uncosted balances. In addition to a lack of effective 
policy guidance and leadership, and limits on program scope and 
funding, such impediments include practical inefficiencies, 
lack of staff capacity and resources, and lack of cooperation 
with other countries.
    The committee urges NNSA to work immediately to eliminate 
any impediments to timely obligating and executing funds that 
may be authorized to be appropriated for NNSA's 
nonproliferation programs. In addition, elsewhere in this Act 
the committee would authorize the repeal and modification of 
certain statutory limits to executing funds for NNSA 
nonproliferation programs while increasing oversight of 
programs, and would authorize funds to expand and strengthen 
staff capacity, capabilities and resources relating to the 
implementation and management of programs. As a result, the 
committee expects any additional funds that it recommends for 
NNSA's nonproliferation programs under this Act will be 
obligated and executed in a timely manner.
    The committee recommends $1,817.6 million, an increase of 
$145.0 million. In addition, the committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million for the NNSA Office of the 
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program 
direction.

National Nuclear Security Administration Office of the Administrator

    The budget request contained $394.7 million for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of the 
Administrator. The committee is concerned by reports of limited 
staff capacity and resources for implementation of critical 
NNSA nonproliferation programs, and about the inability to 
schedule necessary travel to such program sites. Given these 
concerns, the committee recommends $399.7 million, an increase 
of $5.0 million. The committee intends this increase for NNSA 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation to expand and strengthen staff 
capacity, capabilities and resources relating to NNSA 
nonproliferation programs, and to undertake necessary travel to 
such program sites.

Nonproliferation, Research and Development

    The budget request contained $265.2 million for 
Nonproliferation Research and Development (R&D). The committee 
fully supports the goals of the R&D program, and notes that the 
program is the sole remaining Untied States Government 
capability for long-term nuclear nonproliferation research and 
development. The committee emphasizes the importance of 
expanding U.S. scientific skills and resources and improving 
U.S. Government capabilities relating to both short and long-
term innovative nonproliferation research and development that 
will maintain U.S. technological advantage in this area.
    The committee recommends $280.2 million, an increase of 
$15.0 million, as follows: (1) $13.0 million for the 
development of technologies to detect and analyze activities 
relating to the global proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, including plutonium reprocessing, highly-enriched 
uranium enrichment, and special nuclear material movement; and 
(2) $2.0 million for nuclear explosion monitoring.

Radiation Detection Technology

    The committee continues to encourage the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to continue to work closely with the 
Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office on the research and development of radiation detection 
technology, in order to ensure there is no duplication of 
research efforts, but rather a collaborative complementary 
approach to research in areas of common interest.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Capabilities Replacement 
        Laboratory

    The committee emphasizes that it continues to support the 
role of the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security 
Administration in the construction of the Capabilities 
Replacement Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory, which would house critical capabilities for 
national security missions. The committee further emphasizes 
its concern that the budget request for fiscal year 2008 
contained no funds for the Capabilities Replacement Laboratory 
project. The committee strongly recommends that the budget 
request for fiscal year 2009 include funds sufficient to 
complete the Capabilities Replacement Laboratory project in 
February 2011.

Nonproliferation and International Security

    The budget request contained $124.9 million for 
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS). The 
committee fully supports the goals of the NIS program, and 
recommends $147.9 million, an increase of $23.0 million, as 
follows: (1) $5.0 million for technical support to the Six-
Party process on the denuclearization of the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea; and for the application and 
deployment of technologies to detect the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and verify WMD dismantlement; 
(2) $15.0 million to strengthen nuclear safeguards and WMD 
export control systems in foreign countries; to train border, 
customs and other officials in foreign countries to detect and 
prevent theft or other illicit transfer of WMD or WMD-related 
materials; and to re-direct displaced scientists and personnel 
with expertise relating to WMD research and development to 
sustained civil employment, including in Iraq, Libya and 
Russia; and (3) $ 3.0 million for activities relating to the 
Proliferation Security Initiative and other WMD interdiction 
programs.

International Materials Protection and Cooperation

    The budget request contained $371.8 million for 
International Materials Protection and Cooperation (MPC&A). The 
committee fully supports the goals of the MPC&A program and 
recommends $401.8 million, an increase of $30.0 million, as 
follows: (1) $3.0 million to reduce the risk of theft and 
proliferation of weapons-usable nuclear materials across the 
Russian Federation by consolidating excess highly-enriched 
uranium and plutonium into fewer more secure locations in 
Russia, and by converting Russian highly-enriched uranium into 
low-enriched uranium; (2) $7.0 million to ensure the 
sustainability of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 
nonproliferation programs in Russia, in part by addressing the 
concerns and recommendations of the Government Accountability 
Office in its report of February 2007 titled ``Progress Made in 
Improving Security at Russian Nuclear Sites, but the Long-Term 
Sustainability of U.S. Funded Security Upgrades is Uncertain''; 
and (3) $20.0 million for the Second Line of Defense Megaports 
program in order to implement the Security and Accountability 
for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Act) and to deploy and support 
radiation detection equipment at key ports of transit, which 
screen cargo bound for the United States and deter, detect, and 
interdict illicit transfers of materials that could be used in 
WMD or a radiological dispersion device, known as a ``dirty 
bomb''.

Second Line of Defense

    The committee continues to encourage the National Nuclear 
Security Administration to closely coordinate its Second Line 
of Defense efforts to deter, detect and interdict illicit 
transfers of nuclear and radioactive materials at border 
crossings and ports with the efforts of any other relevant 
United States agency or department, including the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.

Global Threat Reduction Initiative

    The budget request contained $119.6 million for the Global 
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). The committee fully 
supports the goals of the GTRI program and recommends $196.6 
million, an increase of $77.0 million, as follows: (1) $5.0 
million to eliminate weapons-usable highly-enriched uranium by 
developing alternative low-enriched uranium fuels, and by 
converting research and test reactors from the use of highly-
enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium in Asia and elsewhere; 
(2) $2.0 million to establish a United States program to 
develop alternative materials for radiological sources that 
could be used in a radiological dispersion device, known as a 
``dirty bomb'', and to eliminate a backlog of excess and 
unwanted domestic radiological sources within U.S. borders; (3) 
$40.0 million to secure vulnerable radiological sites across 
the Russian Federation, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and 
Europe; to recover unsecured radiological sources in Asia; to 
remove unsecured radiological sources across Russia; and for 
activities that address concerns and recommendations of the 
Government Accountability Office, in its report of March 13, 
2007 titled ``Focusing on the Highest Priority Radiological 
Sources Could Improve DOE's Efforts to Secure Sources in 
Foreign Countries''; and (4) $30.0 million to remove and 
dispose of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium, including in 
Africa; and to develop mobile equipment that enables rapid-
response teams to quickly secure and remove nuclear materials 
and denuclearize comprehensive nuclear weapons programs.

Fissile Materials Disposition

            Disposition of Surplus Plutonium
    The budget request contained $609.5 million for the United 
States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, including 
$333.8 million for construction of the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel 
fabrication facility.
    The committee continues to fully support the goals of the 
United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, 
which include disposition of U.S. surplus weapons-grade 
plutonium and use of the MOX facility for such plutonium 
disposition. The committee views disposition of surplus 
weapons-grade plutonium as consistent with the national 
security interests of the United States. Such plutonium 
disposition will allow the nation to improve the domestic 
management and security of our remaining stocks of weapons-
grade plutonium and demonstrate to the international community 
our commitment to permanently eliminating materials that could 
be used for nuclear weapons.
    On April 4, 2007, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted 
the report required by the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
containing: (1) an independent cost estimate for the U.S. 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program and facilities; 
(2) a written certification that the Department intends to use 
the MOX facility for U.S. plutonium disposition regardless of 
the future direction of the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials 
Disposition program; and (3) a corrective action plan for 
addressing the issues raised by the DOE Inspector General in 
the December 2005 report titled ``The Status of the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Fabrication Facility.''
    The committee has reviewed these documents and concludes, 
as it did in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007, that ``moving forward expeditiously with 
construction and operation of the U.S. MOX facility will 
significantly reduce the costs and risks associated with 
managing domestic weapons-grade plutonium.''
    The committee recommends $609.5 million for the U.S. 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, including $333.8 
million for construction of the MOX facility, the amount of the 
budget request.
            Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
    The budget request contained no funds for the Russian 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program.
    The committee continues to fully support the goals of the 
Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, which 
include disposition of the Russian Federation's surplus 
weapons-grade plutonium. In addition, the committee is 
generally pleased with the progress of the Department of 
Energy's nonproliferation programs with Russia, and emphasizes 
the importance of these programs to U.S. national security 
goals.
    On April 4, 2007, the Department submitted a report that 
describes the following developments relating to finalization 
of an agreement with Russia on the path forward for Russian 
plutonium disposition: the United States and Russia have 
formally reaffirmed their joint commitment to plutonium 
disposition pursuant to the 2000 Plutonium Disposition and 
Management Agreement (2000 Agreement); the United States and 
Russia formally resolved liability protections for U.S.-funded 
work in Russia relating to plutonium disposition; a U.S.-
Russian joint experts group produced a report that sets forth 
cost and schedule assessments for initial plutonium disposition 
by Russia and implementation plans for Russia's longer-term 
plutonium disposition program; and Russia is currently 
considering the joint experts group report and working toward a 
formal decision regarding its technical approach to plutonium 
disposition.
    Although the committee appreciates the recent developments 
described in DOE's report, that document does not fully address 
all of the elements of the report on Russian plutonium 
disposition required by the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 
The committee expects that the required report will be 
submitted to the relevant committees at the earliest possible 
date.
    The committee is also concerned by the remaining lack of 
certainty on issues relating to the path forward for Russian 
plutonium disposition, including Russia's technical disposition 
method, Russian funding, and any cost-sharing arrangements. The 
committee urges the Department to resolve all outstanding 
issues relating to Russian plutonium disposition program, and 
to finalize an agreement with Russia regarding this program 
that is consistent with the 2000 Agreement and its 
nonproliferation goals, and ensures any reactors used under the 
agreement do not produce plutonium and include necessary 
monitoring and inspection controls.
    Given the committee's concerns described above, the 
committee recommends no funds for the Russian Surplus Fissile 
Materials Disposition program, the amount of the budget 
request. Further, as recommended in the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the committee recommends that of those funds available 
from prior fiscal years for the program, no more than $20.0 
million shall be available for expenditure until 30 days after 
the Secretary of Energy has provided to the congressional 
defense committees the report described above. The committee 
notes that there continue to be adequate prior year funds 
available for the program in the event that Russia and the 
United States agree on a path forward for Russian plutonium 
disposition; are prepared to resume cooperative work on a 
Russian plutonium disposition program that is consistent with 
the 2000 Agreement and its nonproliferation goals; and are 
fully committed to such a program.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $6,419.9 million for 
environmental and other defense activities.
    The committee recommends $6,419.9 million, the same as the 
budget request.

Salt Waste Processing Facility

    The budget request contained $131.0 million for the Salt 
Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site in South 
Carolina.
    The committee is aware of concerns raised by the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board regarding the geotechnical 
investigation, the structural evaluation, and quality assurance 
measures being conducted for the Department of Energy's future 
Salt Waste Processing Facility. This facility, when completed, 
will process salt waste from high-level waste tanks at the 
Savannah River Site. After processing, the resulting 
concentrated high-level waste will be sent to the Defense Waste 
Processing Facility for vitrification and ultimate disposal in 
a long-term geologic repository, and the decontaminated salt 
solution will be sent to the Saltstone Facility for disposal at 
the Savannah River Site.
    According to the Safety Board, the geotechnical 
investigation reports for the Salt Waste Processing Facility 
are significantly behind schedule for the current stage of the 
facility design. The facility is nearing Critical Decision 2, 
Approval of Performance Baseline, yet a final determination of 
the design basis earthquake and the design settlement that 
could result from an earthquake has not been made, and further 
errors and deficiencies in the structural analysis need to be 
resolved. The committee understands that the Department is 
committed to resolving the Safety Board's concerns prior to 
reaching Critical Decision 2, at which time definitive cost, 
scope, and schedule baselines should have been developed. The 
committee appreciates the Department's efforts and fully 
expects the Department to incorporate lessons learned from its 
other large and complex construction projects that have 
recently experienced cost increases and schedule delays 
resulting from technical and managerial issues.
    The committee recommends $131.0 million for the Salt Waste 
Processing Facility, the amount of the budget request.

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

    The budget request contained $690.0 million for the Waste 
Treatment and Immobilization Plant at the Hanford Site in 
Washington.
    The committee recognizes that significant steps have been 
taken to address the technical and managerial problems 
associated with the Department of Energy's Waste Treatment and 
Immobilization Plant and is encouraged by the recent 
establishment of a new cost and schedule baseline for the 
project. The committee reminds the Department of the 
legislative requirement for the Secretary of Energy to certify 
to the congressional defense committees that the earned value 
management system for the project has been recommended for 
acceptance by the Defense Contract Management Agency and that 
the seismic and ground motion criteria are final. The committee 
expects that if these steps are fulfilled the Department will 
be in a position to effectively execute this program.
    The committee recommends $690.0 million for the Waste 
Treatment and Immobilization Plant, the amount of the budget 
request.

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order Milestones

    The committee is aware that the Department of Energy's 
Office of Environmental Management might be unable to meet 40 
to 50 of a total of 210 federal facility agreement or consent 
order milestones enforceable in fiscal year 2008. The at-risk 
milestones apply to environmental cleanup activities at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Oak Ridge 
Reservation in Tennessee, the Hanford Site in Washington, and 
the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The committee is 
generally supportive of the Department's risk-based 
prioritization of environmental cleanup activities, but 
encourages the Department to continue to strive to meet all 
federal facility agreement and consent order milestones. When 
funding or technical challenges impact the Department's ability 
to meet a milestone, the Committee encourages the Department to 
continue to communicate openly with the States and make 
adjustments accordingly.

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

    The budget request contained $292.0 million within defense 
nuclear waste disposal for the Yucca Mountain Project.
    The committee continues to support the need for a permanent 
deep geologic repository for high level radioactive waste.
    The committee recommends $292.0 million for defense nuclear 
waste disposal, the amount of the budget request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations


         Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration

    This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear 
Security Administration for fiscal year 2008, including funds 
for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation 
programs, naval reactor programs, and the Office of the 
Administrator.

              Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup

    This section would authorize funds for defense 
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2008.

                 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities

    This section would authorize funds for other defense 
activities for fiscal year 2008.

              Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

    This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear 
waste disposal for fiscal year 2008.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


Section 3111--Study on Using Existing Pits in the Reliable Replacement 
                            Warhead Program

    This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear 
Security to assess the feasibility of remanufacturing warheads 
using existing pits in the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) 
program; determine the advisability of proceeding with the 
remanufacture of warheads using existing pits prior to the 
remanufacture of warheads using newly manufactured pits; and 
convey the findings in a report to the congressional defense 
committee to be submitted by February 1, 2008. The report shall 
be unclassified, but the Administrator may also deliver a 
classified version of the report to the congressional defense 
committees.

Section 3112--National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Study on 
               Nuclear Weapons Complex Protective Forces

    This section would require the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) to analyze the feasibility, costs and 
benefits of providing protective forces for the nuclear weapons 
complex through contract employees, federal employees, or a 
combination of the two, and submit a report describing the 
results of the study to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2008.

    Section 3113--Report on Retirement and Dismantlement of Nuclear 
                                Warheads

    This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear 
Security to submit a dismantlement report to the congressional 
defense committees by February 1, 2008. This report shall 
include: (1) the current plan and schedule for retirement and 
dismantlement of those warheads that have not yet been retired 
and dismantled but are not part of the nation's enduring 
stockpile; (2) an assessment of the capacity of the Pantex and 
Y-12 plants to accommodate an accelerated schedule for 
dismantlement of such warheads; and (3) an assessment of the 
feasibility of accelerating the dismantlement schedule for such 
warheads.

  Section 3114--Assessment of Security Risks Posed to Nuclear Weapons 
                                Complex

    This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear 
Security to conduct an assessment of the respective risks posed 
by threats to the physical and cyber security of the weapons 
complex; an assessment of security technologies and equipment 
employed throughout the weapons complex; and a description of 
the methods used by the Department of Energy to prioritize 
investments among physical and cyber security programs and 
activities. This section also would require an assessment of 
security technologies employed throughout the weapons complex. 
This assessment shall consider the age and maintenance status 
of security technologies at each NNSA site, and be accompanied 
by a plan for the lifecycle maintenance and replacement of 
security technologies. These assessments should be consolidated 
and submitted in a report to the congressional defense 
committees by February 1, 2008.

  Section 3115--Department of Energy Report on plan to strengthen and 
       expand International Radiological Threat Reduction Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
submit to Congress, within 60 days after the enactment of this 
Act, a report that sets forth a specific plan for strengthening 
and expanding the Department of Energy Materials Protection, 
Control, and Accounting program. This plan would include 
actions to address the concerns raised, and recommendations 
made, by the Government Accountability Office in its report of 
February, 2007, titled ``Progress Made in Improving Security at 
Russian Nuclear Sites, but the Long-Term Sustainability of U.S. 
Funded Security Upgrades is Uncertain.''

  Section 3116--Department of Energy Report on Materials Cooperation 
                     Control and Accounting Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
submit to Congress, within 60 days after the enactment of this 
Act, a report that sets forth a specific plan for strengthening 
and expanding the Department of Energy International 
Radiological Threat Reduction Program under the Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative. This plan would include actions to 
address the concerns raised, and recommendations made, by the 
Government Accountability Office in its report of March 13, 
2007 titled ``Focusing on the Highest Priority Radiological 
Sources Could Improve DOE's Efforts to Secure Sources in 
Foreign Countries.''

    Section 3117--Authority To Use International Nuclear Materials 
    Protection and Cooperation Funds Outside the Former Soviet Union

    This section would modify certain presidential 
certification and congressional notification requirements and 
repeal a funding limitation regarding the use of International 
Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program funds for 
programs outside the former Soviet Union, while increasing 
oversight of such programs. This section would be consistent 
with the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission regarding the 
need to expand, strengthen, and otherwise support certain 
threat reduction and nonproliferation programs.

Section 3118--Increased Authority for Ombudsman Under Energy Employees 
               Occupational Illness Compensation Program

    This section would amend section 3686 of the Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 
(EEOICPA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-398) to extend the life of 
the Office of the Ombudsman and expand its authority.
    The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program Act (EEOICPA) was enacted as part of the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Public Law 106-398). The Office of the Ombudsman was 
established by amendments to EEIOCPA contained in the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
(P.L. 108-375). As provided by EEOICPA, as amended, the Office 
of the Ombudsman would sunset on October 28, 2007. This section 
would repeal the sunset provision and grant the Office of 
Ombudsman authority to contract for expert services to assist 
in the execution of its duties, where appropriate. 
Additionally, this section would require that funding for the 
ombudsman must be provided by discretionary appropriations 
provided subsequent to enactment of this Act.

          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $22.5 million for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2008. The 
committee recommends $22.5 million, the amount of the budget 
request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                      Section 3201--Authorization

    This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2008.

                TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                          Beryllium Shortfalls

    The committee is concerned about forecasts that show 
depletion of beryllium in the National Defense Stockpile by 
2010. Without necessary mining and manufacturing capabilities 
within the United States, the defense and space industrial base 
will be without essential resources to produce many critical 
weapons systems and hardware components including, but not 
limited to, the Global Hawk Sensor, Trident upgrade and various 
guidance and optical components.
    The committee is aware of a plan to establish a new 
beryllium refinery and manufacturing facility that would 
mitigate the shortfalls of stockpiled beryllium. The committee 
notes that significant increases in estimated construction 
costs for that facility have created a $25.0 million gap in 
funding needed to execute the approved strategy. The committee 
strongly encourages the Department of Defense to reevaluate the 
allocation of funds across the Future Years Defense Plan for 
beryllium refining and manufacturing facilities in order to 
ensure the United States is not at a strategic disadvantage as 
a result of beryllium shortages in the coming years.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


   Section 3301--Authorized uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds

    This section would authorize $44.8 million from the 
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation 
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal 
year 2008. This section would also permit the use of additional 
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after 
Congress receives notification.

 Section 3302--Revisions to Required Receipt Objective for Previously 
        Authorized Disposals from the National Defense Stockpile

    This section would authorize revisions on limitations in 
asset sales contained in section 3303 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) as 
amended by section 3402(f) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), and 
section 3304(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).
    This section would also authorize revisions on limitations 
in asset sales contained in section 3305(a)(5) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), as amended by section 3305 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public 
Law 107-107).
    This section would further authorize revisions on 
limitations in asset sales contained in section 3303(a) of the 
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), as amended by section 3302 of 
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), and section 3302(a) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163).

                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize $17.3 million for fiscal year 
2008 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and 
Oil Reserves.

                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                    Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program

    The committee is disappointed that the budget request 
contained no funds, required by section 502(5) of the Federal 
Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), for expenses 
relating to the loan guarantee program authorized by title XI 
of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (46 U.S.C. Chap 537). The 
committee notes that, in accordance with section 101 of the 
Merchant Marine Act of 1936, it is necessary to the national 
defense and development of commerce that the United States 
shall have a merchant marine ``sufficient to carry its 
waterborne commerce . . . composed of the best-equipped, 
safest, and most suitable types of vessels, constructed in the 
United States . . .'', and further ``it is hereby declared to 
be the policy of the United States to foster the development 
and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine.''
    The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 
Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-136) authorized appropriations at 
$30.0 million per year through fiscal year 2008 for this 
program along with $6.0 million per year for expenses relating 
to administration of the program.
    During testimony before the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces, the Maritime Administrator testified that 
it was the position of the Department of Transportation that 
title XI loan guarantees were a form of corporate subsidy and 
that only administrative expenses associated with maintenance 
of outstanding loan guarantees were requested for fiscal year 
2008.
    The committee believes that this view is inconsistent with 
established policy of the United States. The committee believes 
that a revitalized title XI loan guarantee program could 
reverse the declining trend in U.S. commercial shipyards; open 
new markets in the maritime coast-wide trade, particularly 
short-sea shipping, which has the potential to remove 
significant amounts of overland freight on the nations 
highways; and provide a more robust fleet of domestically 
constructed, owned, and operated vessels available for use by 
the government in time of war or national emergency.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
submit a report, by July 31, 2007, to the House Committee on 
Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the 
House Committee on Appropriations, and the Senate Committee on 
Commerce detailing the current status of the maritime 
guaranteed loan program. This report is in addition to any 
other reporting requirement required by law. The report shall 
include a detailed listing of all loan guarantees approved 
since January 1, 1990, divided by loan guarantees that have 
proven successful, or are currently successful, and those loan 
guarantees that ended in default of the obligor and subsequent 
liability to the government. The report shall also include an 
analysis of the types of vessels or maritime trade, which have 
a high success rate in repayment of guaranteed loans. 
Additionally, the Secretary shall include the number and type 
of applications for loan guarantees submitted since January 1, 
2004, and the reason the application was approved or denied.

         Student Incentive Payments at State Maritime Academies

    The budget request contained $1.9 million for direct 
payments to the state maritime academies, but contained no 
funds for the student incentive payment program (SIP). The 
committee understands that the budget request for fiscal year 
2008 shifts funds from the student incentive payments (SIP) 
account to the direct payment account for the maritime 
academies.
    The committee believes that the graduates of the state 
maritime academies are essential to the United States Merchant 
Marine fleet as well as the ships of the Military Sealift 
Command and that many midshipmen participate in the SIP program 
as a way of offsetting the cost of their education at the state 
maritime academies. Midshipmen who participate in the SIP 
program incur service obligations in accordance with section 
51509 of title 46, United States Code, which includes a minimum 
of 3 years of service as a merchant marine officer.
    The committee is concerned that shifting this funding to 
the direct payment account will reduce the programs 
effectiveness and may ultimately lead to fewer midshipmen 
accepting commissions in the merchant marine.
    The committee directs the Administrator of the Maritime 
Administration, after consultation with the presidents of the 
various state maritime academies, to submit a report by July 
31, 2007, to the House Committee on Armed Services and the 
Senate Committee on Commerce a report on the status of the SIP. 
The report shall include the total number of students currently 
enrolled in the SIP, by academy and graduation year; the method 
and schedule for SIP payments; the process for acceptance into 
the program; and an analysis of the programs effectiveness in 
encouraging midshipmen to pursue a carrier in the merchant 
marine. The Administrator shall include, as enclosures to the 
report, any written opinions or correspondence the presidents 
of the state maritime academies wish to submit with regard to 
this program.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


   Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2008

    This section would authorize a total of $135.3 million for 
fiscal year 2008. Of the funds authorized, $13.9 million would 
be available for capital improvements at the Merchant Marine 
Academy, and $8.2 million would be available for the repair of 
school ships at the state maritime academies. In addition, 
$20.0 million would be authorized for disposal of vessels in 
the nonretention fleet.

   Section 3502--Temporary Authority to Transfer Obsolete Combatant 
                      Vessels to Navy for Disposal

    This section would require the Secretary of Transportation 
to transfer no fewer than three combatant vessels in the 
nonretention fleet of the Maritime Administration for disposal 
by scrapping to the Secretary of the Navy during fiscal year 
2008. This section would accelerate the disposal of vessels by 
using the Navy Disposal Program, which has substantial 
experience in disposing of obsolete vessels in an 
environmentally sound manner.

                           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, February 6, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 
Bill for Fiscal Year 2008.
    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.
    Enclosure: As Stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                     Washington, DC, March 1, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposals as part 
of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 
2008.
    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 Haynes II,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As Stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, March 28, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposals as part 
of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 
2008.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                      William J. Haynes II,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As Stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: The Department of Defense requests that 
the Congress enact the enclosed legislative proposals as part 
of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 
2008.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                      William J. Haynes II,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As Stated.

                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

                          House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill, 
H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008. There are certain provisions in the legislation 
which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
    In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed 
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I 
am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential 
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
consideration of the bill, the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject 
matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X 
jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name 
Members of this Committee to any conference committee which is 
named to consider any such provisions.
    In addition, I note that one provision of this legislation 
is also contained in H.R. 1, Implementing the 9/11 Commission 
Recommendations Act of 2007. I understand that you will 
continue to support the inclusion of that provision in H.R. 1. 
Finally, I note that there are a number of provisions relating 
to Afghanistan and Iraq that will likely be included in 
legislation reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I 
understand that you will give due consideration to waiving 
consideration of such provisions in legislation to be 
considered in the future by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
and that we will work together as any such legislation moves 
through the legislative process.
    I appreciate your cooperation on these matters, and I would 
ask that you place this letter into the Committee Report on 
H.R. 1585.
            Sincerely,
                                                Tom Lantos,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Tom Lantos,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting 
consideration. I concur that by agreeing to waive consideration 
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
    With regard to the section entitled ``Repeal and 
Modifications of Limitations on Assistance for Prevention of 
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism,'' 
which is contained in H.R. 1, I will continue to support the 
inclusion of this provision in that legislation. I will also 
consider waiving the Committee's right to schedule a mark-up of 
provisions in forthcoming legislation from your Committee 
regarding Afghanistan and Iraq which have been included in H.R. 
1585, as ordered reported.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Education and Labor,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Skelton: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
understanding regarding consideration of H.R. 1585, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. As you 
know, the Committee on Education and Labor has a jurisdictional 
interest in several provisions in the bill.
    In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
expeditiously to the floor consideration of this important 
bill, I do not intend to request the sequential referral of 
H.R. 1585 to the Committee on Education and Labor. However, I 
do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of 
the bill, the Committee on Education and Labor does not waive 
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
contained in the bill which fall within its jurisdiction. In 
addition, should this bill or similar legislation be considered 
in a conference with the Senate, I would expect members of the 
Committee on Education and Labor to be appointed to the 
conference committee on such measures.
    Finally, I ask that you include a copy of our exchange of 
letters in your committee's report on H.R. 1585 and in the 
Congressional Record during the consideration of this bill. If 
you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not 
hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,
                                             George Miller,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. I agree that the Committee on Education and Labor has 
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
decision not to schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest 
of expediting consideration. I concur that by agreeing to waive 
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee 
on Education and Labor is not waiving its jurisdiction over 
these matters.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Skelton: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. There are certain provisions in the legislation which 
fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
    In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed 
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs agrees not to request a 
sequential referral. By waiving consideration of H.R. 1585, the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs does not waive any future 
jurisdictional claim over any subject matter contained in the 
bill which falls within its jurisdiction. The Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs reserves its right to seek conferees on any 
provisions within its jurisdiction which are considered in a 
House-Senate conference, and requests your support if such a 
request is made.
    Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
1585 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of 
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative 
spirit in which you have worked with the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs regarding this matter and others between our respective 
committees.
            Sincerely,
                                                Bob Filner,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Bob Filner,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting 
consideration. I concur that by agreeing to waive consideration 
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Skelton: I am writing about H.R. 1585, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which 
the Committee on Armed Services ordered reported to the House 
on May 9, 2007.
    I appreciate your effort to consult with the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of 
H.R. 1585 that fall within the Oversight Committee's 
jurisdiction. These provisions involve the federal civil 
service and federal acquisition policies. In addition, I thank 
you for including certain provisions of H.R. 1362, the 
Accountability in Contracting Act, in your authorization.
    In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 1585, 
the Oversight Committee will not request a sequential referral 
of this bill. I would, however, request your support for the 
appointment of conferees from the Oversight Committee should 
H.R. 1585 or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference 
with the Senate. Moreover, this letter should not be construed 
as a waiver of the Oversight Committee's legislative 
jurisdiction over subjects addressed in H.R. 1585 that fall 
within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee.
    I request that you include our exchange of letters on this 
matter in the Committee on Armed Services Committee Report on 
H.R. 1585 and in the Congressional Record during consideration 
of this legislation on the House floor.
    Again, I appreciate your willingness to consult the 
Committee on these matters.
            Sincerely,
                                           Henry A. Waxman,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in 
this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
decision not to schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest 
of expediting consideration. I concur that by agreeing to waive 
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform is not waiving its 
jurisdiction over these matters.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Skelton: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence in matters being considered in H.R. 1585, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
    Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1585 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, 
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do 
not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, 
is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral 
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and that a copy of 
this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional 
interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part 
of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 
by the House.
    The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also asks 
that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions 
over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
conference.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                           Silvestre Reyes,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Silvestre Reyes,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to schedule a mark-up of this 
bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I concur that 
by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the 
bill, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not 
waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Natural Resources,
                                      Washington, DC, May 10, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to review 
the text of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008, for provisions which are within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources. Among these 
provisions are those dealing with benefits for the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps, environmental 
review, and public lands, including the National Wildlife 
Refuge System.
    Because of the continued cooperation and consideration that 
you have afforded me and my staff in developing these 
provisions, I will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1585 
based on their inclusion in the bill. Of course, this waiver is 
not intended to 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 Natural 
Resources on these provisions, and request your support if such 
a request is made.
    Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
1585 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of 
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative 
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and 
others between our respective committees.
    With warm regards, I am.
            Sincerely,
                                        Nick J. Rahall, II,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting 
consideration. I concur that by agreeing to waive consideration 
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Natural 
Resources is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing with regard to H.R. 1585, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. 
The bill contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I support passage of 
the bill, and I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring 
it up on the House floor in an expeditious manner. The 
Committee will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. This 
decision is based on my understanding that you have agreed that 
the inaction of the Committee with respect to the bill does not 
in any way serve as a jurisdictional precedent as to our two 
committees.
    Further, as to any House-Senate conference on the bill, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves the right to seek the 
appointment of conferees for consideration of portions of the 
bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. It is my 
understanding that you have agreed to support a request by the 
Committee with respect to serving as conferees on the bill (or 
similar legislation).
    I request that you send a letter to me confirming our 
agreements as to jurisdiction, including with respect to 
conferees, and that our exchange of letters be included in your 
Committee's report on the bill and inserted in the 
Congressional Record as part of the consideration of the bill. 
Those provisions under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce include:
          Sec. 311--Reimbursement of EPA for certain costs in 
        connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site;
          Sec. 312--Reimbursement of EPA for certain costs in 
        connection with Arctic Surplus Superfund Site;
          Sec. 313--Payment to EPA of stipulated penalty in 
        connection with Jackson Park Housing Complex;
          Sec. 606--Guaranteed pay increase for members of the 
        armed forces of one-half of one-percentage point higher 
        than employment cost index (as added via an amendment 
        from Mrs. Drake);
          Sec. 661--Consolidation of special pay, incentive 
        pay, and bonus authorities of the uniformed services 
        (as amended by an amendment from Dr. Snyder);
          Sec. 2835--Transfer of jurisdiction, former Nike 
        Missile Site.
    I look forward to working with you on this important 
legislation. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please 
do not hesitate to contact me.
            Sincerely,
                                           John D. Dingell,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. 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 schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest 
of expediting consideration. I concur that by agreeing to waive 
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction over 
these matters. We will seriously consider your request to 
support the Committee on Energy and Commerce's request to serve 
as conferees on the bill.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Homeland Security,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Skelton: I am writing to you concerning the 
bill H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008. There are certain provisions in the 
legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
    In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I 
am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential 
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
consideration of the bill the Committee on Homeland Security 
does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject 
matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X 
jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name 
members of this committee to any conference committee which is 
named to consider such provisions.
    Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
1585 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of 
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative 
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and 
others between our respective committees.
            Sincerely,
                                        Bennie G. Thompson,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. 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 
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting 
consideration. I concur that by agreeing to waive consideration 
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on Homeland 
Security is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Skelton: I write to you regarding H.R. 1585, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008''. This legislation authorizes the Department of Defense 
programs.
    H.R. 1585 contains provisions that fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring 
this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, 
accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. 
However, I agree to waive consideration of this bill with the 
mutual understanding that my decision to forego a sequential 
referral of the bill does not waive, reduce, or otherwise 
affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure over H.R. 1585.
    Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees during 
any House-Senate conference convened on this legislation on 
provisions of the bill that are within the Committee's 
jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to support any request 
by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the 
appointment of conferees on H.R. 1585 or similar legislation.
    Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Committee 
Report on H.R. 1585 and in the Congressional Record during 
consideration of the measure on the House Floor.
    I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
this important national defense legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                   James L. Oberstar, M.C.,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. James L. Oberstar, M.C.,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. 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 schedule a mark-up of this 
bill in the interest of expediting consideration. I concur that 
by agreeing to waive consideration of certain provisions of the 
bill, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not 
waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to advise you that the Committee 
on the Judiciary has now had an opportunity to review the 
provisions in H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008, as approved by your Committee, that fall 
within our Rule X jurisdiction. I appreciate your consulting 
with us on those provisions. The Judiciary Committee has no 
objection to your including them in the bill for consideration 
on the House floor, and to expedite that consideration is 
willing to waive sequential referral, with the understanding 
that we do not thereby waive any future jurisdictional claim 
over those provisions or their subject matters.
    In the event a House-Senate conference on this or similar 
legislation is convened, the Judiciary Committee reserves the 
right to request an appropriate number of conferees to address 
any concerns with these or similar provisions that may arise in 
conference.
    Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
1585 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of 
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative 
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and 
others between our committees.
            Sincerely,
                                         John Conyers, Jr.,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. 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 
schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of expediting 
consideration. I concur that by agreeing to waive consideration 
of certain provisions of the bill, the Committee on the 
Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction over these matters.
    This exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
report on the bill.
            Very truly yours,
                                               Ike Skelton,
                                                          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 2008 
and each of the following five fiscal years. The results of 
such efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate, 
which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    In accordance with clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives and section 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. 1585 would authorize appropriations of $499.1 billion 
for fiscal year 2008 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. 1585 is $507.0 
billion. It would also authorize an additional $141.6 billion 
emergency appropriation for fiscal year 2008 to support 
Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
    The committee estimates that enacting H.R. 1585 would not 
increase mandatory budget authority for fiscal year 2008 or the 
following five years. In terms of discretionary and mandatory 
budget authority, H.R. 1585 is within the allocation provided 
by H.Con.Res. 99, as passed by the House on March 29, 2007, 
which establishes the Congressional budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2008 and sets forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 
through 2012.
    The committee has been in close and constant consultation 
with the Congressional Budget Office and has provided copies of 
H.R. 1585 as ordered reported on May 9, 2007, 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. 1585 by 
the House of Representatives.

                     COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI

    Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the committee is required to include a list 
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
tariff benefits, as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of 
Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, which 
are in the bill or the report. The following table provides the 
list of such provisions which are included in the bill and the 
report:


                           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) 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 provide the necessary resources and authorities to 
restore military readiness, meet the urgent and immediate force 
protection needs of our troops, and take care of service 
members and their families, all of which further the national 
security interests of the United States.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of restoring 
military readiness and reducing strategic risk, the objective 
of this legislation is to:
          (1) Address manpower needs with an increase of 36,000 
        personnel in the Army, 9,000 in the Marine Corps, 963 
        in the Air Force, and 698 in the Navy in 2008. This 
        would bring end strength levels to 525,400 for the 
        Army, 189,000 for the Marine Corps, 329,098 for the 
        Navy, and 329,563 for the Air Force.
          (2) Authorize $13.6 billion for the Army and $8.4 
        billion for the Marine Corps to fully fund equipment 
        reset requirements and authorize $1.0 billion for the 
        National Guard and Reserve to purchase equipment on its 
        unfunded requirements list;
          (3) Establish the Defense Readiness Production Board 
        to mobilize the defense industrial base to speed up the 
        production of military equipment and to authorize $1.0 
        billion for the Strategic Readiness Fund;
          (4) Provide $250.0 million to address training 
        shortfalls throughout the Department of Defense; and
          (5) Require a plan on reconstitution of prepositioned 
        equipment stocks.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of meeting the 
force protection needs of our troops, particularly those 
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, the objective of this 
legislation is to:
          (1) Provide $4.6 billion to fully fund the 
        requirement for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) 
        vehicles;
          (2) Provide $2.5 billion for up-armored humvees; and
          (3) Provide $1.2 billion for vehicle add-on armor.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of taking care of 
service members and their families, the objective of this 
legislation is to:
          (1) Provide a 3.5 percent across the board pay raise 
        for our men and women in uniform. The raise would 
        reduce the pay gap between the military and private 
        sector pay to 3.4 percent;
          (2) Prohibit increases in both TRICARE and pharmacy 
        user fees, which would prevent over $1.9 billion in 
        healthcare costs from being passed on to service 
        members; and
          (3) Adopt the provisions from the House-passed 
        Wounded Warrior Assistance Act that would establish new 
        requirements to provide the people, training, and 
        oversight mechanisms needed to ensure high quality care 
        and efficient administrative processing in an 
        environment that reflects high quality of life 
        standards for recovering service members.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States 
Constitution.

                     STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

    Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this 
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, 
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private 
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal 
intergovernmental mandates.

                              RECORD VOTES

    In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with 
respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 1585. The 
record of these votes is attached to this report.
    The committee ordered H.R. 1585 reported to the House with 
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 58-0, a quorum being 
present.


         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    The committee has taken 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, and will make the analysis available as 
soon as possible.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    We support H.R. 1585 and feel that it reflects our 
committee's strong and continued support for the brave men and 
women of the United States armed forces. In many ways, this 
bill is a good bill. It authorizes the President's request for 
$503.8 billion for the Fiscal Year 2008 base budget of the 
Department of Defense and national security programs of the 
Department of Energy. Additionally, it includes almost $142 
billion to fund Fiscal Year 2008 war costs.
    The Army and Marine Corps end-strength growth in this 
legislation continues initiatives started by this committee 
several years ago: in Fiscal Year 2008, the Army would be 
authorized 525,400 active duty personnel--3,000 more than 
authorized last year--and the Marine Corps would be authorized 
189,000 active duty personnel--9,000 more than last year. It 
provides for successful programs--such as the Commanders 
Emergency Response Program, which is working well on the 
battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan--and continues this 
committee's commitment to force protection by adding $4.1 
billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle.
    As proud as we are of this legislation, we also recognize 
that this bill is not a perfect bill.
    We believe that all Members of Congress owe our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines the very best available equipment, 
training, and support. To fulfill this obligation, Armed 
Services Committee members must take our legislative 
responsibilities seriously and live up to our committee's 
mission, which is to authorize policies, programs, and 
appropriations that provide our courageous servicemembers with 
the best possible tools to undertake their missions. This is 
especially true during a time of war.
    Therefore, we must express our strong disappointment, 
concern, and frustration with the failure of this committee to 
adopt an amendment that would have authorized emergency 
supplemental appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007. In the past, 
committee members lamented the lack of an authorization process 
for such appropriations, which are necessary to provide near-
term funding for our military's ongoing missions.
    This amendment presented Armed Services Committee members 
with the supplemental appropriations conference report language 
and appropriations amounts that we had already seen, debated, 
voted upon, and passed on the floor of the House of 
Representatives--minus the non-war-related items outside the 
committee's jurisdiction, such as the funds relating to spinach 
and shrimp. Those items bloated the recently-vetoed emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1581. The amendment also 
omitted that failed bill's controversial Iraq language, such as 
possible withdrawal dates that were arbitrarily tied to a 
calendar and not the operational conditions on the ground.
    Adding this amendment would have allowed the committee to 
reclaim its jurisdiction over authorizing funds for Department 
of Defense activities and send a strong, supportive message to 
our troops, who are currently deployed in harm's way. It truly 
is a shame that claims of perceived process infractions denied 
us this opportunity.
    We believe that Congress, and particularly the Armed 
Services Committees in both chambers, have the unmistakable 
obligation to ensure that the Department of Defense develops 
and deploys defensive capabilities that protect the American 
people, our forward-deployed forces, and our allies. This 
includes promising programs in the area of missile defense.
    In 2006 alone, there were roughly 100 foreign ballistic 
missile launches around the world, including from North Korea 
and Iran. In the face of these mounting threats, H.R. 1585 cuts 
almost $800 million in funding that would enable our military 
to develop and field a robust, layered ballistic missile 
defense system. That system would be capable of intercepting 
missiles in the boost, midcourse, and terminal phases of 
flight. We express deep disappointment that this legislation 
fails to recognize the need for multiple missile intercept 
opportunities, provide adequate funds for the capability to 
engage a missile before it releases its warhead, and balance 
investments in near-term systems and future capabilities.
    H.R. 1585 also reflects a funding reduction of $864 million 
to the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, a decrement 
that amounts to more than the cuts in the last three years 
combined. Modernization ensures the readiness of our future 
force and is a strategic necessity. As the central component of 
Army modernization, FCS is the first comprehensive 
modernization effort since World War II. It fills capability 
gaps that cannot be fulfilled by solely upgrading current 
systems. FCS represents approximately 3% of the Army's base 
budget for Fiscal Year 2008. Such a large decrement to the FCS 
program in one year could: terminate rather than slow down 
select Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, robotic vehicles, and Manned 
Ground Vehicles (less Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon); invalidate the 
currently-approved system of systems Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council requirements; and impact systems engineering 
work on software and network design, logistics, and training 
efforts. We agree that the Army needs a higher top-line, but 
the Army's funding crisis cannot be solved by making such large 
reductions to the FCS program. The Army must be allowed to 
invest in technologies and equipment that enable our most 
important asset--the soldier--to remain more effective than our 
adversaries, who are quickly adapting their methods, tactics, 
and tools of warfare.
    As a nation, we face a multitude of threats to our way of 
life and our national security interests. As legislators, we 
must accept that it is our duty to ensure that our men and 
women in uniform, who have bravely volunteered to serve our 
nation, have the best available tools at their disposal to 
combat those threats and protect those interests. This bill 
goes a considerable way in demonstrating this committee's 
resolve, but we can--and should--improve it.
    We owe that much to our men and women, who answer the call 
in defense of our nation.
                                   Duncan Hunter.
                                   Jim Saxton.
                                   John M. McHugh.
                                   Terry Everett.
                                   Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon.
                                   Mac Thornberry.
                                   Robin Hayes.
                                   W. Todd Akin.
                                   J. Randy Forbes.
                                   Jeff Miller.
                                   Joe Wilson.
                                   Rob Bishop.
                                   Michael Turner.
                                   John Kline.
                                   Candice S. Miller.
                                   Phil Gingrey.
                                   Michael D. Rogers.
                                   Trent Franks.
                                   Thelma D. Drake.
                                   Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
                                   K. Michael Conaway.

     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER DUNCAN HUNTER OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your hard work 
in crafting H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008. We can be proud of this legislation that 
supports funding for unique and innovative foreign language 
training for our brave military men and women. The FY 2008 base 
budget included $10.4 million for the Defense Language 
Institute in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), 
specifically for satellite communications language training 
activities (SCOLA).
    SCOLA provides television programming in a variety of 
languages from around the world and uses Internet-based 
streaming video capability; expanding the availability of its 
training to military and civilian linguists anywhere in the 
world with access to an Internet connection. SCOLA is also 
developing a digital archive that will allow federal government 
users anywhere in the world to review and sort language 
training on command.
    I am pleased that the Department of Defense is increasing 
its investment in these innovative language training 
technologies to meet the high demand for such training. The 
funding provided to SCOLA to improve the language skills and 
cultural understanding of linguists in the United States armed 
forces is essential to their success and should continue to be 
used for that intended purpose.

                                                     Duncan Hunter.

       ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SOLOMON P. ORTIZ AND CAROL SHEA-PORTER

    Yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee passed 
legislation that made changes in the Survivor's Benefit Plan 
(SBP)--Dependent Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Offset, technical 
fixes aimed at protecting the widows of service members. Of 
note was the one change in that allows for the payback of a 
portion of the SBP that is offset by the DIC. The payback of 
the offset provides up to $40 dollars a month to the widows of 
service members.
    The Military Personnel Subcommittee has taken an important 
step to solve the larger problem of eliminating the offset that 
takes away a benefit, up to $1067 a month, from those who most 
deserve the support of this nation. The SBP-DIC offset is one 
of the few remaining statutes that lowers a benefit, from those 
who have paid out of pocket premiums, from not only those who 
have lost loved ones in the current wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, but also retirees who sacrificed so much for this 
country.
    Although this provision is a step in the right direction 
towards improving the lives of over 59,000 widows, we still 
have a ways to go. For the committee to provide full payment of 
both the SBP and DIC, we recommend consideration of H.R. 1927 
(Ortiz, D-TX), a companion bill to S. 935 (Nelson, D-FL), to 
fully eliminate the offset and thus provide benefits that the 
survivors of our service men and women fully deserve.
                                   Solomon P. Ortiz.
                                   Carol Shea-Porter.

  ADDITIONAL VIEWS FROM THE MILITARY DEPOT AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 
                                 CAUCUS

    We strongly support the provisions contained H.R. 1585 that 
will increase the core logistics ability of the Department of 
Defense centers of industrial and technical excellence and 
promote a skilled workforce. We are concerned that without 
these provisions, the centers of industrial and technical 
excellence will not be able to acquire the critical work 
skills, components, assemblies, spares and repair parts, and 
other items of equipment required to mitigate obsolescence on 
existing platforms as well as induct new core logistics work on 
future weapon systems. Specifically, we endorse the following 
provisions:
    Section 321--Increase to Capital Asset Authority. This 
provision would increase the authority for the acquisition of 
capital assets through the Working Capital Fund from $100,000 
to $250,000. By raising the working capital fund threshold, 
maintenance depots would be able to acquire critical components 
quickly to enable the military services to accelerate 
technology refreshment of critical warfighter equipment.
    Section 322--Authorization of Availability of Working-
Capital Funds for Certain Product Improvements. This provision 
would give limited authority to the Department to use Defense 
Working Capital Funds to make limited product improvements for 
weapon systems, major end items, and components. The Department 
of Defense Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence 
(CITEs) need to be able to incorporate commercial technologies 
into existing components, assemblies, spares and repair parts, 
and other items of equipment based on the lessons learned in 
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the weapon system 
platforms used in combat today have exceeded the projected 
average age for use. The ability to use technology insertion 
and refreshment during depot maintenance availabilities to 
change the performance capability of the end item to mitigate 
obsolescence and improve performance is critical to the reset 
and recapitalization of our warfighting platforms.
    Section 323--Authorization of Use of Working-Capital Funds 
for Acquisition of Certain Items. This provision would 
establish dollar thresholds for the Defense Working Capital 
Funds to acquire items that support maintenance and technology 
refreshment and ensure the viability of core logistics 
capabilities. This provision would provide limited flexibility 
for the Department of Defense Centers of Industrial and 
Technical Excellence to replace obsolete components with newer 
technology replacements to perform weapon system modifications, 
improvement and service-life extensions during maintenance 
availabilities. These technology insertions would improve 
reliability and maintainability, extend the useful life, 
enhance safety, lower maintenance costs, provide performance 
enhancement or expand the performance capability of weapons 
system platforms by the acquisition of critical new components, 
assemblies, spares and repair parts, and other items of 
equipment during depot maintenance availabilities.
    Section 331--Reauthorization and Modification of Multi-
Trades Demonstration Project. In 2003, the Department of the 
Navy was ordered to carry out a demonstration project under 
which three Naval Aviation Depots (now ``Navy Fleet Readiness 
Centers'') were to be given the flexibility to promote, by one 
grade, level workers who are certified at the journey level as 
able to perform multiple trades. (PL 108-136 Sec. 338) However, 
the Navy did not implement a depot maintenance multi-trade 
pilot program that met the statutory requirements. Instead, the 
Navy's report on the project was less than two pages and stated 
that the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) would 
provide the adequate vehicle for the project. Since the federal 
courts stayed implementation of NSPS, the Navy implemented an 
old model which garnered little support from the employees. 
This new program will reauthorize the Multi-Trades 
Demonstration Project and expand it to include the Air Force 
Air Logistics Centers and the Navy Fleet Readiness Centers. 
This Project must be separate from the NSPS.
    We believe these provisions provide the needed flexibility 
to reset the forces used in Iraq and Afghanistan, using 
technology insertion and product improvement during depot 
maintenance availabilities. These provisions also facilitate 
the expansion of core logistics functions and competencies and 
the skilled work force required for our national defense at the 
centers of industrial and technical excellence.
                                   Solomon P. Ortiz.
                                   Neil Abercrombie.
                                   Rob Bishop.
                                   Walter B. Jones.
                                   Carol Shea-Porter.
                                   Mike Rogers.

        ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SOLOMON P. ORTIZ AND LORETTA SANCHEZ

    This letter is to raise concern with the Southwest Border 
Fence Section proposed in the Chairman's mark of the Department 
of Defense 08 Authorization.
    Having the honor of representing the Marine Corps Air 
Station (MCAS Yuma) in Yuma, AZ I am greatly concerted with 
regards to Southwest Border Fence section. I ask that you 
reconsider the recommendation to construct 10 miles of double 
fencing at MCAS Yuma.
    The terrain surrounding MCAS Yuma and BMGR include Organ 
Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife 
Refuge, and the Tohono O'odham Nation. The respective 
representatives and leadership from the federal agencies and 
sovereign tribe have opposed fencing.
    On August 2, 2006, the House Armed Services Committee held 
a hearing regarding Southern Border Security. The primary focus 
was of Operation Jump Start, among the witnesses was Commanding 
Officer of MCAS Yuma, Colonel B D Hancock. Colonel Hancock took 
the opportunity to focus on the impact of a fence to the local 
military installations. Highlights of his testimony include:
    MCAS Yuma range coordination between Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) and the Barry M. Goldwater West Range (BMGR) 
has improved and the number of vehicle entries and impacts to 
military training has decreased significantly.
    Creation of a 1.5 mile ``Interdiction Zone'' would create 
conflict with management requirements and the overall mission 
of the BMGR in collaboration with the other agencies. 
Furthermore this Zone would not meet the Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) missions and would create additional risks to 
readiness.
    An ``Interdiction Zone'' is not required to meet CBP and 
Marine Corps mission requirements but would create additional 
risks to readiness.
    A relinquishment of the land to CBP for an ``Interdiction 
Zone'' would generate strong pressure for the overlying 
airspace to support the CBP ground activities permitted within 
the zone and impact upon the ability to maintain readiness.
    In addition, Colonel Hancock has prioritized vehicle 
barriers and along with the Arizona Commanders summit publicly 
opposed construction of the fence in July 2006.
    A requirement to construct double fencing at the MCAS Yuma 
will undermine the work that MCAS Yuma and BMGR personnel have 
done in cooperation with the Border Patrol, federal land 
managers, and local stakeholders for several years to plan for 
the installation of vehicle barriers. A number of other groups 
have voiced strong opposition to the construction of this 
fence.
    In light of the opposition of these numerous and disparate 
groups to the construction of the Southwestern Border Fence, I 
hope that you will reconsider this section of the 
Authorization.
                                   Solomon P. Ortiz.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   
                                   

            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF TRENT FRANKS AND JEFF MILLER

    While we support the Committee passed version of H.R. 1585, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, I 
remain concerned about the way in which the amendment offered 
by Mr. Kline was considered.
    Using the proper procedure set up and enacted by the 
Democrat majority on the Committee, Mr. Kline submitted his 
amendment in a confidential manner.
    When Mr. Kline's amendment was considered, members of the 
majority, who establish the committee procedure because of 
their control as the majority, then made numerous complaints 
about Congressman Kline's amendment. The Democrat arguments 
against it were procedural. The Democrat majority argued they 
did not have time to read it, yet the Chairman of the Committee 
would not recognize a legitimate motion from one of his own 
Democrat members (and seconded by a Republican member) to 
adjourn until 1 a.m. to read and consider the amendment.
    This amendment was simple, and was exactly as Mr. Kline 
originally described it. His amendment did two things: (1) This 
amendment authorized a clean Emergency Wartime Supplemental 
Appropriations (minus the pork and issues that would cause a 
sequential referral), and (2) included the text of Congressman 
Johnson's bill H.R. 511. In an attempt to be bipartisan, 
references to the words ``Commander in Chief'' were removed 
from the version that Mr. Kline submitted.
    After utilizing procedural tactics to delay consideration 
of Mr. Kline's amendment, the majority submitted a handwritten 
substitute amendment that gutted Mr. Kline's amendment, by 
omitting any authorization of Emergency Wartime Supplemental 
appropriations language, and the amendments were immediately 
brought to a vote, not allowing time for the minority to offer 
a second degree amendment to the Chairman's substitute.
    We believe it unfortunate that this amendment did not 
receive what I considered to be the due consideration it 
deserved. In particular, Mr. Kline's amendment represented a 
unique opportunity to do exactly what the current majority 
demanded to do when they occupied the minority in the 108th and 
109th Congresses--authorize and exert jurisdiction over 
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations. It is 
unfortunate that we did not take this opportunity as the 
committee of jurisdiction. Should Mr. Kline choose to offer it 
for floor consideration, we would urge the House Rules 
Committee to make it in order.
    We are including a copy of Mr. Kline's amendment as part of 
my additional views because we believe his amendment clearly 
enunciates the principles that we, and the majority of our 
Committee, would support if a vote on his amendment had been 
allowed.
                                   Trent Franks.
                                   Jeff Miller.
                                   
                                   

  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES THELMA DRAKE AND J. RANDY FORBES

    Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our deep concern 
about Title 22, Naval Master Jet Basing, and its attempt to 
revisit the 2005 BRAC process. We steadfastly refuse to make 
any endorsement as to the effectiveness of the 2005 BRAC 
process. Yet, we believe that it is in the interest of the 
military, affected communities, and Congress to accept the 
results of the 2005 BRAC round given the Department's 
consideration of basing decisions just two years ago.
    Whether the Committee encourages a study involving the 
relocation of naval air assets, submarine berthing capacity or 
ship repair functions, it is not in the best interest of the 
Committee or the Congress to reconsider the BRAC decisions. 
Congressional involvement in this issue distracts from 
substantive policy issues as Members seek to protect, expand, 
or defend the communities and military installations within 
their districts. We are further concerned that while the report 
language is truthful, it is incomplete and does not accurately 
reflect the situation at NAS Oceana. For example, the language 
readily includes a description of the encroachment situation 
surrounding the East Coast Master Jet Base, but omits a 
recently signed Memorandum of Agreement reached between the 
City of Virginia Beach and the Navy that is common knowledge to 
those who follow this issue. The decision phase of the 2005 
BRAC round has concluded. As we continue in the implementation 
phase of BRAC, we support the Chairman and his efforts to 
ensure that the BRAC round is fully implemented by the military 
in accordance with the law.
    We are also concerned about the Committee's conflicting 
language concerning an Outlying Landing Field near the East 
Coast Master Jet Base. Under Title 22, Naval Master Jet Basing, 
the Committee identifies several factors it believes 
contributes to the ``unsatisfactory situation'' at Oceana Naval 
Air Station, including the difficulty in securing land for an 
outlying landing field. We are perplexed as to why the 
Committee--with its concern about the need for an outlying 
landing field to support fleet readiness--would take proactive 
steps in the legislation to eliminate the opportunity for the 
Navy to secure land for an outlying landing field. It is the 
strong opinion of these Members that regardless of what may 
have previously impeded the establishment of an outlying 
landing field, the most significant impediment to the 
establishment of an outlying landing field now is the lack of 
congressional authorization for such activity.
    While we are disappointed in these provisions, we remain 
optimistic in the future because the Committee has consistently 
demonstrated a level of cooperation and bipartisanship capable 
of producing sound military policy.
                                   Thelma Drake.
                                   J. Randy Forbes.

               ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS

    As I was on leave from the House of Representatives the 
week of May 7, 2007 due to the birth of my son, I would like to 
state how I would have voted on the roll call votes during 
Committee markup of H.R. 1585:
    Roll Call #1--Akin Amendment to restore $200 million to the 
Future Combat Systems. Vote ``Aye.''
    Roll Call #2--Drake Amendment #70 to strike directive 
report language entitled ``Naval Master Jet Basing'' that 
appears in Title XXII of the Subcommittee on Readiness report. 
Vote ``Aye.''
    Roll Call #3--Thornberry Amendment #88 to increase funding 
for GPS III by $100 million. Vote ``Aye.''
    Roll Call #4--Tauscher Amendment #136, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to the amendment offered by Mr. Hunter, 
a sense of Congress regarding missile defense. Vote ``No.''
    Roll Call #5--Franks Amendment #156 to restore $10 million 
to the Space Test Bed. Vote ``Aye.''
    Roll Call #6--Franks Amendment #157 to restore $100 million 
to the Airborne Laser. Vote ``Aye.''
    Roll Call #7--Franks Amendment #151 to restore full funding 
to the President's budget request for the Missile Defense 
Agency by adding $764 million. Vote ``Aye.''
    Roll Call #8--Skelton Amendment #147, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to the amendment by Mr. Miller, a sense 
of Congress regarding detainees at Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay. Vote ``Aye.''
    Roll Call #9--Mrs. Davis of California Amendment #12 
modifying conveyance authority at Marine Corps Base, Camp 
Pendleton. Vote ``No.''
    Roll Call #10--Final Passage of Committee report on H.R. 
1585. Vote ``Aye.''
    I applaud the Committee and support this mark overall. It 
offers critical support to our men and women in uniform. Though 
no amount of money can justly compensate them for volunteering 
to serve and make the sacrifices we ask of them, the 
Committee's authorization of a 3.5% pay raise is needed 
progress toward closing the gap between military pay and the 
private sector.
    In addition, our Committee acted wisely in rejecting 
perennial administration attempts to hike TRICARE fees, copays 
and premiums for military retirees. Our service men and women 
have earned access to quality health care. Budgetary problems 
should not be fixed at the cost of those who served.
    The Committee also maintained oversight by adding language 
reinforcing the 2005 NDAA, preserving critical search and 
rescue capability at Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, WA. 
The 36th Rescue Flight also supports the Air Force Survival 
School. Since its establishment, the 36th Rescue Flight has 
made over 600 saves. I appreciate the collaboration and support 
of the entire Washington State delegation and Members from 
Idaho and Oregon, in addition to the Governor of Washington and 
hundreds of members of the Eastern Washington community. The 
Committee's decision is in the best interests of the Air Force 
and the people of the Inland Northwest.
    It is not, however, a perfect mark. By cutting $200 million 
from the President's Budget request for KC-X procurement funds, 
the mark further delays the recapitalization of an aging fleet. 
Air refueling tankers are central to nearly every military 
operation involving aircraft. The KC-135s are holding up due to 
the fine maintenance crews in the Air Force, but readiness and 
operational capability is being diminished while maintenance 
costs grow rapidly. I will continue to advocate for acting now 
to take responsibility for the future. We must aggressively 
prepare for replacement of KC-135s as the Air Force completes 
their fair and open selection process for the KC-X.
                                            Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

                                  
