[House Report 110-652]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-652

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


                     DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 5658

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

  May 16, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                                      




                     DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009






110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-652
_______________________________________________________________________




                     DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   ON

                               H.R. 5658

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

    May 16, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            theState 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..........................................................     2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     2
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill..............     2
  Summary Table of Authorizations................................     4
Budget Authority Implication.....................................    14
  Summary Table of Budget Authority Implication..................    15
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................    18
Hearings.........................................................    20

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.................    21
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    21
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    21
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    24
      Overview...................................................    24
      Items of Special Interest..................................    28
        Armed reconnaissance helicopter..........................    28
        Compact aircraft support cart for Army National Guard 
          rotorcraft.............................................    28
        UH-60A to UH-60L helicopter upgrade......................    29
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    29
      Overview...................................................    29
      Item of Special Interest...................................    32
        Guided multiple launch rocket system.....................    32
    Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.....    32
      Overview...................................................    32
      Items of Special Interest..................................    36
        Army vehicle modernization plans.........................    36
        Small arms acquisition strategy..........................    37
        Stryker mobile gun system production delay...............    37
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army..............................    38
      Overview...................................................    38
      Item of Special Interest...................................    43
        XM982 precision guided extended range artillery 
          projectile.............................................    43
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    43
      Overview...................................................    43
      Items of Special Interest..................................    57
        Army enterprise resource planning systems................    57
        Counterfire radars.......................................    57
        Defense Advanced GPS Receivers...........................    57
        Interoperable radios for Texas Army National Guard 
          disaster response......................................    58
        Multi-temperature refrigerated container system..........    58
        Non-system training device program.......................    58
        Operations center technology.............................    59
        Profiler meteorological system...........................    59
        Single channel ground and airborne radio system..........    59
        Tactical operations centers..............................    60
        Tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition strategy............    60
        Warfighter information network--tactical.................    61
    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund................    61
      Overview...................................................    61
      Items of Special Interest..................................    63
        Explosives signatures database...........................    63
        Unfunded counter-improvised explosive device requirements 
          and needs..............................................    63
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    64
      Overview...................................................    64
      Items of Special Interest..................................    69
        Electronic warfare system core depot development.........    69
        F/A-18E/F and EA-18G.....................................    69
        Navy helicopter force structure..........................    69
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    70
      Overview...................................................    70
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps...............    74
      Overview...................................................    74
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    78
      Overview...................................................    78
      Items of Special Interest..................................    81
        Aircraft carrier force structure.........................    81
        Attack submarine force structure requirements............    81
        Service-life extension of SSN-688 Los Angeles class hulls    82
        U.S. Navy shipbuilding plan..............................    82
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    84
      Overview...................................................    84
      Items of Special Interest..................................    96
        Boat davit system improvements...........................    96
        CVN propeller replacement program........................    96
        Jet fuel electric valve actuators........................    96
        Multi-climate protection system..........................    96
        Surface ship SPQ-9B radar improvements...................    97
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    97
      Overview...................................................    97
      Items of Special Interest..................................   103
        Abrams tank total integrated engine revitalization 
            program strategy for Marine Corps Abrams tanks.......   103
        Chemical biological incident response force..............   103
        Marine Corps radio systems...............................   103
        Unit operations centers..................................   104
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................   104
      Overview...................................................   104
      Items of Special Interest..................................   112
        Air National Guard RC-26B modernization..................   112
        KC-45 aerial refueling aircraft program..................   112
        Mission support aircraft.................................   113
        Special Operations Command aircraft recapitalization.....   113
        Strategic airlift aircraft programs......................   113
    Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.........................   115
      Overview...................................................   115
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   118
      Overview...................................................   118
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   122
      Overview...................................................   122
      Item of Special Interest...................................   128
        General information technology...........................   128
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   128
      Overview...................................................   128
      Items of Special Interest..................................   137
        Standard Missile-3 interceptors..........................   137
        Terminal High Altitude Area Defense procurement..........   137
    Rapid Acquisition Fund.......................................   137
      Overview...................................................   137
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........................   138
      Overview...................................................   138
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   140
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   140
      Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations..........   140
      Section 105--National Guard and Reserve Equipment..........   140
      Section 106--Rapid Acquisition Fund........................   140
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................   140
      Section 111--Separate Procurement Line Items for Future 
        Combat Systems Program...................................   140
      Section 112--Restriction on Contract Awards for Major 
        Elements of the Future Combat Systems Program............   140
      Section 113--Restriction on Obligation of Funds for Army 
        Tactical Radio Pending Report............................   140
      Section 114--Restriction on Obligation of Procurement Funds 
        for Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Program Pending 
        Certification............................................   141
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................   141
      Section 121--Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. 
        Theodore Roosevelt.......................................   141
      Section 122--Applicability of Previous Teaming Agreements 
        for Virginia-Class Submarine Program.....................   141
      Section 123--Littoral Combat Ship Program..................   141
      Section 124--Report on F/A-18 Procurement Costs, Comparing 
        Multi-year to Annual.....................................   141
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................   142
      Section 131--Limitation on Retiring C-5 Aircraft...........   142
      Section 132--Maintenance of Retired KC-135E Aircraft.......   142
      Section 133--Repeal of Multi-Year Contract Authority for 
        Procurement of Tanker Aircraft...........................   142
      Section 134--Report on Processes Used for Requirements 
        Development for KC 09X...................................   143
    Subtitle E--Joint and Multi-Service Matters..................   143
      Section 141--Body Armor Acquisition Strategy...............   143
      Section 142--Small Arms Acquisition Strategy and 
        Requirements Review......................................   143
      Section 143--Requirement for Common Ground Stations and 
        Payloads for Manned and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.........   144

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............   144
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   144
    Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.............   146
      Overview...................................................   146
      Items of Special Interest..................................   165
        Advanced lithium iron phosphate battery system for light 
          tactical vehicles......................................   165
        Antiballistic windshield armor...........................   165
        Army intelligent agent software programs.................   165
        Army missile modernization...............................   166
        Chemical mechanical self-destruct fuze...................   166
        Common Missile Warning System............................   166
        Condition based maintenance..............................   167
        Data links aerial systems................................   167
        Dynamometer facility upgrade program.....................   167
        Enhanced holographic imager..............................   168
        Future Combat Systems....................................   168
        Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles.............   169
        Future Combat Systems modular brigade enhancement........   170
        Future Combat Systems system of systems engineering and 
            program management...................................   170
        Future Combat Systems unmanned aerial vehicles...........   171
        Future Combat Systems unmanned ground vehicles...........   171
        Glass ceramic armor technology for vehicle survivability.   171
        Capital Global Command and Control System-Army...........   172
        Ground soldier systems concept development...............   172
        Heavy duty hybrid electric vehicle demonstration.........   172
        High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle bloc 
          improvements...........................................   173
        Integrated fire control system for small arms............   173
        Joint Cargo Aircraft program.............................   173
        Landmine Warfare/Barrier--system development and 
            demonstration........................................   174
        Multi-threat explosive detection initiative..............   174
        Near-net shaped direct-sinistered silicon carbide torso 
            plate technology.....................................   175
        Platform soldier mission readiness system for tactical 
          wheeled vehicles.......................................   175
        Polymer matrix composites for rotorcraft drive systems...   175
        RAND Arroyo Center.......................................   175
        Stryker family of vehicles research and development......   176
        Torque-vectoring rollover prevention technology..........   176
        Warfighter Information Network--Tactical, increment 3, 
          program................................................   176
        Weapon shot counter technology...........................   177
        Wearable personal area network technology................   177
    Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.............   177
      Overview...................................................   177
      Items of Special Interest..................................   194
        Advanced anti-radiation guided-missile weapon data link 
          program................................................   194
        Advanced electric motor development......................   194
        Affordable weapon system.................................   194
        All-weather sense-and-avoid system for unmanned aerial 
          vehicles...............................................   195
        Composite Sea Lion craft project.........................   196
        Extended range guided-munitions..........................   196
        Global Command and Control System-Maritime...............   196
        Helicopter windscreen laminate appliques.................   197
        High-Integrity Global Positioning Systems................   197
        Hyper-spectral targeting sensor..........................   197
        Large-scale demonstration item for VA-Class bow dome.....   198
        Marine Corps assault vehicles............................   198
        Marine Corps shotgun modernization program...............   198
        Marine mammal awareness, alert and response systems......   198
        MK-48 torpedo technology development.....................   199
        Naval Ship Hydrodynamic Test Facilities, NSWC, Carderock.   199
        Navy strategy for maritime domain awareness..............   199
        Non-lethal weapons and technology........................   200
        Recapitalization of anti-submarine warfare aircraft......   201
        Reliable Replacement Warhead.............................   201
        Report on energetic materials research development and 
            manufacturing technology.............................   202
        Ruggedized helicopter avionics displays..................   202
        Sea-based strategic deterrent/undersea launched missile 
          study..................................................   203
        Seafighter...............................................   203
        SSGN/Virginia payload tube development...................   203
        Threat-D missile target development......................   204
        Trigger and alert sonobuoy...............................   204
        Ultraviolet-cure structural repair adhesives.............   204
        Urban operations laboratory..............................   205
        VH-71 presidential helicopter program....................   205
        Warfighter rapid awareness processing technology.........   205
    Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation........   206
      Overview...................................................   206
      Items of Special Interest..................................   223
        B-2 small Diameter Bomb Moving-Target-Kill integration...   223
        C-130J development.......................................   223
        Combat search and recovery vehicle-x.....................   223
        Common vertical lift support platform....................   224
        Cyber boot camp..........................................   224
        Global Command and Control System-Air Force..............   224
        High Accuracy Network Determination System...............   225
        Improved reliability for optimized inspection............   225
        Intercontinental ballistic missile cryptography upgrade..   225
        Joint cargo aircraft program.............................   226
        Joint strike fighter.....................................   227
        Low profile arresting gear...............................   228
        Metals affordability initiative..........................   229
        Multiple unmanned aerial vehicle employment against a 
            common objective.....................................   229
        Next-generation tactical environmental clothing..........   229
        Non-attribution of open source intelligence research.....   230
        Operationally responsive space...........................   230
        RAND Project Air Force...................................   231
        Single-mode optical connectors for advanced air vehicles.   231
        Space control test capabilities..........................   232
        Third Generation Infrared Surveillance...................   232
        Winglets for in-service aerial refueling aircraft........   232
        Wire integrity technology program........................   233
    Defense Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.....   234
      Overview...................................................   234
    Operational Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.......   252
      Overview...................................................   252
      Items of Special Interest..................................   254
        Acquisition of foreign material for training purposes....   254
        Advanced energy storage technology initiative............   254
        Analysis of the industrial base for space acquisitions...   255
        Army advanced hypersonic weapon..........................   255
        Ballistic missile defense................................   255
          Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense........................   255
          Airborne Laser.........................................   256
          Arrow Weapons System...................................   257
          Ballistic missile defense discrimination radar in 
            Israel...............................................   257
          Ballistic missile defense reductions...................   257
          Ballistic missile defense sensors......................   258
          Ballistic missile defense system space program.........   258
          European Ground-based Midcourse Defense component......   258
          Kinetic Energy Interceptor.............................   259
          Missile defense force structure........................   260
          Missile defense program element structure..............   260
          Missile defense program oversight......................   261
          Missile defense testing and targets....................   261
          Multiple Kill Vehicle..................................   262
          Short-range ballistic missile defense..................   262
          Space Tracking and Surveillance System.................   263
          Terminal High Altitude Area Defense....................   263
        Blood cell storage.......................................   263
        Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the 
            National Defense University..........................   264
        Chemical and biological defense basic and applied 
            research and advanced technology development 
            initiative...........................................   264
          Chemical/biological defense advanced technology 
            development initiative...............................   264
          Chemical/biological defense applied research initiative   265
          Chemical/biological defense basic research initiative..   265
        Cyberterror protection expansion for the Department of 
          Defense................................................   265
        Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency................   265
        Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency relocation.....   266
        Defense Agencies Initiative sustainment..................   267
        Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
          Research...............................................   267
        Defense Information System for Security..................   268
        Department of Defense bandwidth requirements for the 
          future.................................................   268
        Energy technology investment roadmap.....................   269
        Foliage penetration capability...........................   269
        Green information technology standards...................   270
        Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority 
            Serving Institutions.................................   270
        Human, social, and cultural behavioral modeling advanced 
          development............................................   271
        Human, social, and cultural behavior modeling research...   272
        Human systems integration................................   272
        Increase in basic research...............................   273
        Independent verification and validation for financial 
            management systems...................................   273
        Information technology clearinghouse.....................   273
        K-12 computer sciences and mathematics education.........   274
        Lean Six Sigma process analysis within the Office of 
            Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
            Technology, and Logistics............................   274
        Managing and extending Department of Defense asset 
          lifecycles.............................................   275
        Nanocrystal source display...............................   275
        Naval Postgraduate School................................   275
        Open source software systems.............................   275
        Post-detonation nuclear forensics........................   276
        Pre-Key Decision Point-B system vulnerability assessment.   276
        Printed circuit board technology.........................   277
        Review of cost reimbursements on defense research grants 
            and contracts........................................   277
        Science and technology for strategic communication.......   278
        Social science research within the Department of Defense.   279
        Sustainment of Business Transformation Agency programs...   279
        Technology to improve future spectrum management usage...   280
        Transformational Medical Technology Initiative...........   280
        Wounded Warriors as information technology, scientific, 
            and engineering specialists..........................   281
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   281
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   281
      Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............   281
      Section 202--Amount for Defense Science and Technology.....   281
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   281
      Section 211--Additional Determinations to be Made as Part 
        of Future Combat Systems Milestone Review................   281
      Section 212--Analysis of Future Combat Systems 
        Communications Network and Software......................   282
      Section 213--Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicle 
        Selected Acquisition Reports.............................   282
      Section 214--Separate Procurement and Research, 
        Development, Test, and Evaluation Line Items and Program 
        Elements for Sky Warrior Unmanned Aerial Systems Project.   282
      Section 215--Restriction on Obligations of Funds for the 
        Warfighter Information Network--Tactical Program.........   282
      Section 216--Limitation on Source of Funds for Certain 
        Joint Cargo Aircraft Expenditures........................   282
    Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs.........................   283
      Section 221--Independent Study of Boost Phase Missile 
        Defense..................................................   283
      Section 222--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Procurement, Construction, and Deployment of Missile 
        Defenses in Europe.......................................   283
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   283
      Section 231--Oversight of Testing of Personnel Protective 
        Equipment by Director, Operational Test, and Evaluation..   283
      Section 232--Assessment of the Historically Black Colleges 
        and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions 
        Program..................................................   284
      Section 233--Technology-Neutral Information Technology 
        Guidelines and Standards to Support Fully Interoperable 
        Electronic Personal Health Information for the Department 
        of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs............   284
      Section 234--Repeal of Requirement for Technology 
        Transition Initiative....................................   285
      Section 235--Trusted Defense Systems.......................   285
      Section 236--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Enhanced 
        AN/TPQ-36 Radar System Pending Submission of Report......   286
      Section 237--Capabilities Based Assessment to Outline a 
        Joint Approach for Future Development of Vertical Lift 
        Aircraft & Rotorcraft....................................   286
      Section 238--Availability of Funds for Prompt Global Strike 
        Capability Development...................................   287

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................   287
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   287
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   325
    Budget Request Adjustments...................................   325
      Air Sovereignty Alert......................................   326
      Cheyenne Mountain..........................................   326
      Defense Contract Management Agency Restoration of Staffing.   327
      F-15 Maintenance...........................................   327
      Navy Headquarters Organizational Changes...................   327
      Other Contracts............................................   328
      Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative..........   328
      Readiness Shortfalls.......................................   328
      Secure Site................................................   329
    Energy Issues................................................   329
      Energy Conversation........................................   329
      Energy Security on Military Installations..................   329
      Improving Energy Efficiency in Reset and Recapitalization 
        Programs.................................................   330
    Environmental Issues.........................................   330
      Marine Mammal Protection Act National Defense Exemption....   330
      Measurement of Encroachment Impacts on Military Readiness..   331
      Environmental Management Information Systems...............   332
    Workplace and Depot Issues...................................   332
      Army Rail Shop Relocation Study............................   332
      Post-Reset Depot Maintenance...............................   333
      Inherently Governmental Functions..........................   333
      Report on Actions Taken Related to Public-Private 
        Competitions.............................................   334
    Other Matters................................................   335
      Army Logistics Modernization Program.......................   335
      Clarification of Department of Defense Transportation 
        Regulations..............................................   336
      Corrosion Control and Prevention...........................   336
      Defense Travel System......................................   337
      Report on Feasibility of Department of Defense Civilian Law 
        Enforcement Force........................................   338
      Report on Improving Supply Chain Management to Enhance 
        Joint Logistics Capability...............................   338
      Space-Available Priority for Military Retirees with 
        Specialty Medical Care Referral..........................   339
      Space Wargames and Exercises...............................   339
      Tactical and Medium-Altitude Unmanned Aerial Systems Pilot 
        Training and Management..................................   339
      Tire Privatization.........................................   340
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   341
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   341
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   341
    Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions.........................   341
      Section 311--Authorization for Department of Defense 
        Participation in Conservation Banking Programs...........   341
      Section 312--Reimbursement of Environmental Protection 
        Agency for Certain Costs in Connection with Moses Lake 
        Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington.........   342
      Section 313--Expand Cooperative Agreement Authority for 
        Management of Natural Resources to Include Off-
        Installation Mitigation..................................   342
    Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues.......................   342
      Section 321--Time Limitation on Duration of Public-Private 
        Competitions.............................................   342
      Section 322--Comprehensive Analysis and Development of 
        Single Government- Wide Definition of Inherently 
        Governmental Function....................................   343
      Section 323--Study on Future Depot Capability..............   343
      Section 324--High-Performing Organization Business Process 
        Reengineering............................................   343
      Section 325--Temporary Suspension of Studies and Public-
        Private Competitions Regarding Conversion of Functions of 
        the Department of Defense Performed by Civilian Employees 
        to Contractor Performance................................   344
      Section 326--Consolidation of Air Force and Air National 
        Guard Aircraft Maintenance...............................   344
      Section 327--Guidance for Performance of Civilian Personnel 
        Work Under Air Force Civilian Personnel Consolidation 
        Plan.....................................................   344
      Section 328--Report on Reduction in Number of Fire Fighters 
        on Air Force Bases.......................................   345
    Subtitle D--Energy Security..................................   345
      Section 331--Annual Report on Operational Energy Management 
        and Implementation of Operational Energy Strategy........   345
      Section 332--Consideration of Fuel Logistics Support 
        Requirements in Planning, Requirements Development, and 
        Acquisition Processes....................................   345
      Section 333--Study on Solar Energy for Use at Forward 
        Operating Locations......................................   345
      Section 334--Study on Coal-to-Liquid Fuels.................   345
    Subtitle E--Reports..........................................   346
      Section 341--Comptroller General Report on Readiness of 
        Armed Forces.............................................   346
      Section 342--Report on Plan to Enhance Combat Skills of 
        Navy and Air Force Personnel.............................   346
      Section 343--Comptroller General Report on the Use of the 
        Army Reserve and National Guard as an Operational Reserve   346
      Section 344--Comptroller General Report on Link Between 
        Preparation and Use of Army Reserve Component Forces to 
        Support Ongoing Operations...............................   347
      Section 345--Comptroller General Report on Adequacy of 
        Funding, Staffing, and Organization of Department of 
        Defense Military Munitions Response Program..............   347
      Section 346--Report on Options for Providing Repair 
        Capabilities to Support Ships Operating Near Guam........   347
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   348
      Section 351--Extension of Enterprise Transition Plan 
        Reporting Requirement....................................   348
      Section 352--Demilitarization of Loaned, Given, or 
        Exchanged Documents, Historical Artifacts, and Condemned 
        or Obsolete Combat Materiel..............................   348
      Section 353--Repeal of Requirement that Secretary of Air 
        Force Provide Training and Support to Other Military 
        Departments for A-10 Aircraft............................   348
      Section 354--Display of Annual Budget Requirements for Air 
        Sovereignty Alert Mission................................   348
      Section 355--Sense of Congress that Air Sovereignty Alert 
        Missions Should Receive Sufficient Funding and Resources.   348
      Section 356--Revision of Certain Air Force Regulations 
        Required.................................................   349
      Section 357--Transfer of C-12 Aircraft to California 
        Department of Forestry and Fire Protection...............   349
      Section 358--Availability of Funds for Irregular Warfare 
        Support Program..........................................   349
      Section 359--Sense of Congress Regarding Procurement and 
        Use of Munitions.........................................   350
      Section 360--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Air 
        Combat Command Management Headquarters...................   350
      Section 361--Increase of Domestic Sourcing of Military 
        Working Dogs Used by the Department of Defense...........   350

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   350
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   350
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   351
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   351
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   351
      Section 402--Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 
        Minimum Levels...........................................   352
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   352
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   352
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 
        Support of the Reserve Components........................   352
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual 
        Status)..................................................   353
      Section 414--Fiscal Year 2009 Limitation on Number of Non-
        Dual Status Technicians..................................   353
      Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 
        to be on Active Duty for Operational Support.............   353
      Section 416--Additional Waiver Authority of Limitation on 
        Number of Reserve Component Members Authorized to be on 
        Active Duty..............................................   354
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   354
      Section 421--Military Personnel............................   354

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   356
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   356
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   357
      Advance Deployment Notice to Reserve Component Members.....   357
      Air Force Academy Athletic Association.....................   357
      Competitions to Provide Unofficial Information Services to 
        Service Members..........................................   358
      Financial Counseling for Homeowners in the Armed Forces....   359
      National Longitudinal Survey of Youth......................   359
      Report on Duty Status of the Reserve Component.............   359
      Review of Full-Time Manning for the Army National Guard and 
        Army Reserves............................................   360
      Review of Reserve Officer Joint Requirements...............   360
      Searchable Military Decorations Database...................   361
      Strategic Plan to Address Science, Technology, Engineering, 
        Mathematics, and Education...............................   361
      Youth Information in Recruiting Databases..................   362
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   362
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally...............   362
      Section 501--Mandatory Separation Requirements for Regular 
        Warrant Officers for Length of Service...................   362
      Section 502--Requirements for Issuance of Posthumous 
        Commissions and Warrants.................................   363
      Section 503--Extension of Authority to Reduce Minimum 
        Length of Active Service Required for Voluntary 
        Retirement as an Officer.................................   363
      Section 504--Increase in Authorized Number of General 
        Officers on Active Duty in the Marine Corps..............   363
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   363
      Section 511--Extension to All Military Departments of 
        Authority to Defer Mandatory Separation of Military 
        Technicians (Dual Status)................................   363
      Section 512--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Marine 
        Corps Reserve Officers on Active Duty in the Grades of 
        Major and Lieutenant Colonel to Meet Force Structure 
        Requirements.............................................   363
      Section 513--Clarification of Authority to Consider for a 
        Vacancy Promotion National Guard Officers Ordered to 
        Active Duty in Support of a Contingency Operation........   363
      Section 514--Increase in Mandatory Retirement Age for 
        Certain Reserve Officers.................................   364
      Section 515--Age Limit for Retention of Certain Reserve 
        Officers on Active- Status List as Exception to Removal 
        for Years of Commissioned Service........................   364
      Section 516--Authority to Retain Reserve Chaplains and 
        Officers in Medical and Related Specialties until Age 68.   364
      Section 517--Study and Report Regarding Personnel Movements 
        in Marine Corps Individual Ready Reserve.................   364
    Subtitle C--Joint Qualified Officers and Requirements........   364
      Section 521--Joint Duty Requirements for Promotion to 
        General or Flag Officer..................................   364
      Section 522--Technical, Conforming, and Clerical Changes to 
        Joint Specialty Terminology..............................   364
      Section 523--Promotion Policy Objectives for Joint 
        Qualified Officers.......................................   365
      Section 524--Length of Joint Duty Assignments..............   365
      Section 525--Designation of General and Flag Officer 
        Positions on Joint Staff as Positions to be Held Only by 
        Reserve Component Officers...............................   365
      Section 526--Treatment of Certain Service as Joint Duty 
        Experience...............................................   365
    Subtitle D--General Service Authorities......................   366
      Section 531--Increase in Authorized Maximum Reenlistment 
        Term.....................................................   366
      Section 532--Career Intermission Pilot Program.............   366
    Subtitle E--Education and Training...........................   366
      Section 541--Repeal of Prohibition on Phased Increase in 
        Midshipmen and Cadet Strength Limit at United States 
        Naval Academy and Air Force Academy......................   366
      Section 542--Promotion of Foreign and Cultural Exchange 
        Activities at Military Service Academies.................   366
      Section 543--Compensation for Civilian President of Naval 
        Postgraduate School......................................   367
      Section 544--Increased Authority to Enroll Defense Industry 
        Employees in Defense Product Development Program.........   367
      Section 545--Requirement of Completion of Service under 
        Honorable Conditions for Purposes of Entitlement to 
        Educational Assistance for Reserve Components Members 
        Supporting Contingency Operations........................   367
      Section 546--Consistent Education Loan Repayment Authority 
        for Health Professionals in Regular Components and 
        Selected Reserve.........................................   367
      Section 547--Increase in Number of Units of Junior Reserve 
        Officers' Training Corps.................................   367
    Subtitle F--Military Justice.................................   368
      Section 551--Grade of Staff Judge Advocate to the 
        Commandant of the Marine Corps...........................   368
      Section 552--Standing Military Protection Order............   368
      Section 553--Mandatory Notification of Issuance of Military 
        Protective Order to Civilian Law Enforcement.............   368
      Section 554--Implementation of Information Database on 
        Sexual Assault Incidents in the Armed Forces.............   368
    Subtitle G--Decorations, Awards, and Honorary Promotions.....   368
      Section 561--Replacement of Military Decorations...........   368
      Section 562--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal 
        of Honor to Richard L. Etchberger for Acts of Valor 
        during the Vietnam War...................................   369
      Section 563--Advancement of Brigadier General Charles E. 
        Yeager, United States Air Force (Retired), on the Retired 
        List.....................................................   369
      section 564--Advancement of Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer, 
        United States Navy (Retired), on the Retired List........   369
      Section 565--Award of Vietnam Service Medal to Veterans Who 
        Participated in Mayaguez Rescue Operation................   369
    Subtitle H--Impact Aid.......................................   369
      Section 571--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local 
        Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members 
        of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian 
        Employees................................................   369
      Section 572--Calculation of Payments under Department of 
        Education's Impact Aid Program...........................   370
    Subtitle I--Military Families................................   370
      Section 581--Presentation of Burial Flag...................   370
      Section 582--Education and Training Opportunities for 
        Military Spouses.........................................   370
    Subtitle J--Other Matters....................................   370
      Section 591--Inclusion of Reserves in Providing Federal Aid 
        for State Governments, Enforcing Federal Authority, and 
        Responding to Major Public Emergencies...................   370
      Section 592--Interest Payments on Certain Claims Arising 
        from Correction of Military Records......................   370
      Section 593--Extension of Limitation on Reductions of 
        Personnel of Agencies Responsible for Review and 
        Correction of Military Records...........................   371
      Section 594--Authority to Order Reserve Units to Active 
        Duty to Provide Assistance in Response to a Major 
        Disaster or Emergency....................................   371
      Section 595--Senior Military Leadership Diversity 
        Commission...............................................   371

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   371
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   371
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   372
      Defense Commissary Agency Construction Funding.............   372
      Disabled Veterans Access to Commissary and Exchanges.......   372
      Post-Deployment Leave Policy...............................   373
      Telephone Services in Combat Zones.........................   373
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   374
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   374
      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2009 Increase in Military Basic 
        Pay......................................................   374
      Section 602--Permanent Prohibition on Charges for Meals 
        Received at Military Treatment Facilities by Members 
        Receiving Continuous Care................................   374
      Section 603--Equitable Treatment of Senior Enlisted Members 
        in Computation of Basic Allowance for Housing............   374
      Section 604--Increase in Maximum Authorized Payment or 
        Reimbursement Amount for Temporary Lodging Expenses......   374
      Section 605--Availability of Portion of a Second Family 
        Separation Allowance for Married Couples with Dependents.   374
      Section 606--Stabilization of Pay and Allowances for Senior 
        Enlisted Members and Warrant Officers Appointed as 
        Officers and Officers Reappointed in a Lower Grade.......   375
      Section 607--Extension of Authority for Income Replacement 
        Payments for Reserve Component Members Experiencing 
        Extended and Frequent Mobilization for Active Duty 
        Service..................................................   375
      Section 608--Guaranteed Pay Increase for Members of the 
        Armed Forces of One- Half of One Percentage Point Higher 
        than Employment Cost Index...............................   375
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   375
      Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
        Authorities for Reserve Forces...........................   375
      Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
        Authorities for Health Care Professionals................   375
      Section 613--Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 
        for Nuclear Officers.....................................   376
      Section 614--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment 
        of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays...............   376
      Section 615--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment 
        of Referral Bonuses......................................   376
      Section 616--Increase in Maximum Bonus and Stipend Amounts 
        Authorized under Nurse Officer Candidate Accession 
        Program..................................................   376
      Section 617--Maximum Length of Nuclear Officer Incentive 
        Pay Agreements for Service...............................   376
      Section 618--Technical Changes Regarding Consolidation of 
        Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities of the 
        Uniformed Services.......................................   376
      Section 619--Use of New Skill Incentive Pay and Proficiency 
        Bonus Authorities to Encourage Training in Critical 
        Foreign Languages and Foreign Cultural Studies...........   377
      Section 620--Temporary Targeted Bonus Authority to Increase 
        Direct Accessions of Officers in Certain Health 
        Professions..............................................   377
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   377
      Section 631--Increased Weight Allowance for Transportation 
        of Baggage and Household Effects for Certain Enlisted 
        Members..................................................   377
      Section 632--Additional Weight Allowance for Transportation 
        of Materials Associated with Employment of a Member's 
        Spouse or Community Support Volunteer or Charity 
        Activities...............................................   377
      Section 633--Transportation of Family Pets during 
        Evacuation of Non-Essential Personnel....................   377
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits................   378
      Section 641--Equity in Computation of Disability Retired 
        Pay for Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action......   378
      Section 642--Effect of Termination of Subsequent Marriage 
        on Payment of Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity to Surviving 
        Spouse or Former Spouse Who Previously Transferred 
        Annuity to Dependent Children............................   378
      Section 643--Extension to Survivors of Certain Members Who 
        Die on Active Duty of Special Survivor Indemnity 
        Allowance for Persons Affected by Required Survivor 
        Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for Dependency and Indemnity 
        Compensation.............................................   378
      Section 644--Election to Receive Retired Pay for Non-
        Regular Service upon Retirement for Service in an Active 
        Reserve Status Performed after Attaining Eligibility for 
        Regular Retirement.......................................   378
      Section 645--Recomputation of Retired Pay and Adjustment of 
        Retired Grade of Reserve Retirees to Reflect Service 
        after Retirement.........................................   379
      Section 646--Correction of Unintended Reduction in Survivor 
        Benefit Plan Annuities Due to Phased Elimination of Two-
        Tier Annuity Computation and Supplemental Annuity........   379
      Section 647--Presumption of Death for Participants in 
        Survivor Benefit Plan in Missing Status..................   379
    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 
      Instrumentality Benefits and Operations....................   379
      Section 651--Use of Commissary Stores Surcharges Derived 
        from Temporary Commissary Initiatives for Reserve 
        Components and Retired Members...........................   379
      Section 652--Requirements for Private Operation of 
        Commissary Store Functions...............................   380
      Section 653--Additional Exception to Limitation on Use of 
        Appropriated Funds for Department of Defense Golf Courses   380
      Section 654--Enhanced Enforcement of Prohibition on Sale or 
        Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on Military 
        Installations............................................   380
      Section 655--Requirement to Buy Military Decorations, 
        Ribbons, Badges, Medals, Insignia, and Other Uniform 
        Accouterments Produced in the United States..............   380
      Section 656--Use of Appropriated Funds to Pay Post 
        Allowances or Overseas Cost of Living Allowances to 
        Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Employees Serving 
        Overseas.................................................   380
      Section 657--Study Regarding Sale of Alcoholic Wine and 
        Beer in Commissary Stores in Addition to Exchange Stores.   381
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   381
      Section 661--Bonus to Encourage Army Personnel and Other 
        Persons to Refer Persons for Enlistment in the Army......   381
      Section 662--Continuation of Entitlement to Bonuses and 
        Similar Benefits for Members of the Uniformed Services 
        Who Die, are Separated or Retired for Disability, or Meet 
        Other Criteria...........................................   381
      Section 663--Providing Injured Members of the Armed Forces 
        Information Concerning Benefits..........................   382

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   382
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   382
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   383
      Pain Care Initiative in Military Health Care Facilities....   383
      Reserve Component Dental Readiness.........................   384
      Suicide Prevention in the Armed Forces.....................   384
      Wounded Warriors as Health Providers.......................   384
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   385
    Subtitle A--Health Care Matters..............................   385
      Section 701--One-Year Extension of Prohibition on Increases 
        in Certain Health Care Costs for Members of the Uniformed 
        Services.................................................   385
      Section 702--Temporary Prohibition on Increase in 
        Copayments under Retail Pharmacy System of Pharmacy 
        Benefits Program.........................................   385
      Section 703--Prohibition on Conversion of Military Medical 
        and Dental Positions to Civilian Medical and Dental 
        Positions................................................   385
      Section 704--Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active 
        Duty.....................................................   385
      Section 705--Requirement to Recalculate TRICARE Reserve 
        Select Premiums Based on Actual Cost Data................   386
      Section 706--Program for Health Care Delivery at Military 
        Installations Projected to Grow..........................   386
      Section 707--Guidelines for Combined Federal Medical 
        Facilities...............................................   386
    Subtitle B--Preventive Care..................................   386
      Section 711--Waiver of Copayments for Preventative Services 
        for Certain TRICARE Beneficiaries........................   386
      Section 712--Military Health Risk Management Demonstration 
        Project..................................................   387
      Section 713--Smoking Cessation Program Under TRICARE.......   387
      Section 714--Availability of Allowance to Assist Members of 
        the Armed Forces and their Dependents Procure Preventive 
        Health Care Services.....................................   387
    Subtitle C--Wounded Warrior Matters..........................   388
      Section 721--Center of Excellence in Prevention, Diagnosis, 
        Mitigation, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Hearing Loss 
        and Auditory System Injuries.............................   388
      Section 722--Clarification to Center of Excellence Relating 
        to Military Eye Injuries.................................   388
      Section 723--National Casualty Care Research Center........   388
      Section 724--Peer-Reviewed Research Program on Extremity 
        War Injuries.............................................   389
      Section 725--Review of Policies and Processes Related to 
        the Delivery of Mail to Wounded Members of the Armed 
        Forces...................................................   389
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   389
      Section 731--Report on Stipend for Members of Reserve 
        Components for Health Care for Certain Dependents........   389
      Section 732--Report on Providing the Extended Health Care 
        Option Program to Autistic Dependents of Military 
        Retirees.................................................   389
      Section 733--Sense of Congress Regarding Autism Therapy 
        Services.................................................   389

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
    RELATED MATTERS..............................................   389
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   389
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   391
      Acquisition Workforce......................................   391
      Defense Industrial Security................................   392
      Implementation of Changes to Protections for Specialty 
        Metals...................................................   392
      Implementation of Gansler Commission Recommendations.......   393
      Implementation of Revolving Door Requirements..............   394
      Increase in Bid Protests...................................   394
      Iraqi Recipients of Special Immigrant Visas................   395
      Memorandum of Understanding on Contracting in Iraq and 
        Afghanistan..............................................   396
      Preservation of the Tool and Die Industry..................   396
      Service Contractor Inventory...............................   397
      Small Business Programs....................................   398
      Utilization of Local Businesses for Contracts on Guam......   398
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   399
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   399
      Section 801--Review of Impact of Illegal Subsidies on 
        Acquisition of KC-45 Aircraft............................   399
      Section 802--Assessment of Urgent Operational Needs 
        Fulfillment..............................................   399
      Section 803--Preservation of Tooling for Major Defense 
        Acquisition Programs.....................................   399
      Section 804--Prohibition on Procurement from Beneficiaries 
        of Foreign Subsidies.....................................   400
      Section 805--Domestic Industrial Base Considerations during 
        Source Selection.........................................   400
      Section 806--Commercial Software Reuse Preference..........   400
      Section 807--Comprehensive Proposal Analysis Required 
        During Source Selection..................................   400
    Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
      Procedures, and Limitations................................   401
      Section 811--Acquisition Workforce Expedited Hiring 
        Authority................................................   401
      Section 812--Definition of System for Defense Acquisition 
        Challenge Program........................................   401
      Section 813--Career Path and Other Requirements for 
        Military Personnel in the Acquisition Field..............   401
      Section 814--Technical Data Rights for Non-FAR Agreements..   402
      Section 815--Clarification that Cost Accounting Standards 
        Apply to Federal Contracts Performed Outside the United 
        States...................................................   402
    Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Inherently Governmental 
      Matters....................................................   402
      Section 821--Policy on Personal Conflicts of Interest by 
        Employees of Department of Defense Contractors...........   402
      Section 822--Development of Guidance on Personal Services 
        Contracts................................................   403
      Section 823--Limitation on Performance of Product Support 
        Integrator Functions.....................................   403
    Subtitle D--Defense Industrial Security......................   404
      Section 831--Requirements Relating to Facility Clearances..   404
      Section 832--Foreign Ownership Control or Influence........   405
      Section 833--Congressional Oversight Relating to Facility 
        Clearances and Foreign Ownership Control or Influence; 
        Definitions..............................................   405
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   406
      Section 841--Clarification of Status of Government Rights 
        in the Designs of Department of Defense Vessels, Boats, 
        Craft, and Components Thereof............................   406
      Section 842--Expansion of Authority to Retain Fees from 
        Licensing of Intellectual Property.......................   406
      Section 843--Transfer of Sections of Title 10 Relating to 
        Milestone A and Milestone B for Clarity..................   406
      Section 844--Earned Value Management Study and Report......   407
      Section 845--Report on Market Research.....................   407
      Section 846--System Development and Demonstration Benchmark 
        Report...................................................   407
      Section 847--Additional Matters Required to be Reported by 
        Contractors Performing Security Functions in Areas of 
        Combat Operations........................................   407
      Section 848--Report Relating to Munitions..................   408

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   408
      Cyber Command Responsibilities.............................   408
      Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs..........   408
      Inter-agency transformation of the United States Southern 
        Command..................................................   409
      Long-Term Nature of Business Transformation Agency Work....   411
      Planning Assumptions on the Level of Contract Support......   411
      Quadrennial Defense Review.................................   411
      United States Africa Command...............................   412
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   413
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   413
      Section 901--Revisions in Functions and Activities of 
        Special Operations Command...............................   413
      Section 902--Requirement to Designate Officials for 
        Irregular Warfare........................................   413
      Section 903--Plan Required for Personnel Management of 
        Special Operations Forces................................   413
      Section 904--Director of Operational Energy Plans and 
        Programs.................................................   413
      Section 905--Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives 
        for the Military Departments.............................   414
      Section 906--Alignment of Deputy Chief Management Officer 
        Resposibilities..........................................   414
      Section 907--Requirement for the Secretary of Defense to 
        Prepare a Strategic Plan to Enhance the Role of the 
        National Guard and Reserves..............................   414
      Section 908--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as 
        the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps..............   415
      Section 909--Support to Commitee Review....................   415
    Subtitle B--Space Activities.................................   415
      Section 911--Extension of Authority for Pilot Program for 
        Provision of Space Surveillance Network Services to Non-
        United States Government Entities........................   415
      Section 912--Investment and Acquisition Strategy for 
        Commercial Satellite Capabilities........................   415
    Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Program................   415
      Section 921--Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory 
        Commissions in Colorado and Kentucky.....................   415
      Section 922--Prohibition on Transport of Hydrolystate at 
        Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado..........................   416
    Subtitle D--Intelligence-Related Matters.....................   416
      Section 931--Technical Changes Following the Redesignation 
        of National Imagery and Mapping Agency as National 
        Geospatial-Intelligence Agency...........................   416
      Section 932--Technical Amendments to Title 10, United 
        States Code, Arising from Enactment of the Intelligence 
        Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004..............   416
      Section 933--Technical Amendments Relating to the Associate 
        Director of the CIA for Military Affairs.................   417
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   417
      Section 941--Establishment of Department of Defense School 
        of Nursing...............................................   417
      Section 942--Amendments of Authority for Regional Centers 
        for Security Studies.....................................   417
      Section 943--Findings and Sense of Congress Regarding the 
        Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation....   417
      Section 944--Restriction on Obligation of Funds for United 
        States Southern Command Development Assistance Activities   418
      Section 945--Authorization of Non-Conventional Assisted 
        Recovery Capabilities....................................   418
      Section 946--Report on United States Northern Command 
        Development of Interagency Plans and Command and Control 
        Relationships............................................   418

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   419
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   419
    Counter-Drug Activities......................................   419
      Overview...................................................   419
      Items of Special Interest..................................   419
        Budget requests..........................................   419
        International Support....................................   419
        South-propelled semi-submersible vessels and low profile 
          vessels without nationality............................   419
        Southwest Border Fence...................................   420
        Temporary expansion of the Joint Inter-Agency Task Force-
          South..................................................   420
    Other Activities.............................................   421
      Civil Affairs..............................................   421
      Humanitarian Assistance Requirements of the Navy...........   422
      Inclusion of Non-Lethal Capability in Defense Civil Support 
        Requirements Plan........................................   423
      Long-term Plans for Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
        Reconnaissance...........................................   423
      National Language Service Corps............................   424
      Nuclear Weapons Inventory Control..........................   424
      Oversight of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance 
        Proposals for New Capabilities...........................   425
      Strengthening Inter-Agency Stabilization and Reconstruction 
        Contingency Planning.....................................   426
      Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force.......................   426
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   427
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   427
      Section 1001--General Transfer Authority...................   427
      Section 1002--Requirement of Separate Display of Budget for 
        Afghanistan..............................................   427
      Section 1003--Requirement for Separate Display of Budget 
        for Iraq.................................................   428
      Section 1004--One Time Shift of Military Retirement 
        Payments.................................................   428
    Subtitle B--Policy Relating to Vessels and Shipyards.........   428
      Section 1011--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Aransas Pass, Texas   428
      Section 1012--Report on Repair of Naval Vessels in Foreign 
        Shipyards................................................   428
      Section 1013--Policy Relating to Major Combatant Vessels of 
        the Strike Forces of the United States Navy..............   428
      Section 1014--National Defense Sealift Fund Amendments.....   429
      Section 1015--Report on Contributions to the Domestic 
        Supply of Steel and Other Metals from Scrapping of 
        Certain Vessels..........................................   429
    Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   429
      Section 1021--Continuation of Reporting Requirement 
        Regarding Department of Defense Expenditures to Support 
        Foreign Counter-drug Activities..........................   429
      Section 1022--Extension of Authority for Join Task Forces 
        to Provide Support to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting 
        Counter-terrorism Activities.............................   429
      Section 1023--Extention of Authority to Support Unified 
        Counter-drug and Counter-terrorism Campaign in Colombia 
        and Continuation of Numerical Limitation on Assignment of 
        United States Personnel..................................   430
      Section 1024--Expansion and Extension of Authority to 
        Provide Additional Support for Counter-drug Activities of 
        Certain Foreign Governments..............................   430
      Section 1025--Comprehensive Department of Defense Strategy 
        for Counter- narcotics Efforts for West Africa and the 
        Maghreb..................................................   431
      Section 1026--Comprehensive Department of Defense Strategy 
        for Counter- narcotics Efforts in South and Central Asian 
        Regions..................................................   431
    Subtitle D--Boards and Commissions...........................   432
      Section 1031--Strategic Communications Board...............   432
      Section 1032--Extension of Certain Dates for Congressional 
        Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.   432
      Section 1033--Extension of Commission to Assess the Threat 
        to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) 
        Attack...................................................   432
    Subtitle E--Studies and Reports..............................   433
      Section 1041--Report on Corrosion Control and Prevention...   433
      Section 1042--Study on Using Department of Defense Modular 
        Airborne Fire Fighting Systems in a Federal Response to 
        Wildfires................................................   433
      Section 1043--Study on Rotorcraft Survivability............   434
      Section 1044--Studies to Analyze Alternative Models for 
        Acquisition and Funding of Inter-connected Cyberspace 
        Systems..................................................   434
      Section 1045--Report on Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons......   434
      Section 1046--Study on National Defense Implications of 
        Section 1083.............................................   434
      Section 1047--Report on Methods Department of Defense 
        Utilizes to Ensure Compliance with Guam Tax and Licensing 
        Laws.....................................................   434
    Subtitle F--Congressional Recognitions.......................   435
      Section 1051--Sense of Congress Honoring the Honorable 
        Duncan Hunter............................................   435
      Section 1052--Sense of Congress in Honor of the Honorable 
        Jim Saxton, a Member of the House of Representatives.....   435
      Section 1053--Sense of Congress Honoring the Honorable 
        Terry Everett............................................   435
      Section 1054--Sense of Congress Honoring the Honorable Jo 
        Ann Davis................................................   435
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   435
      Section 1061--Amendment to Annual Submission of Information 
        Regarding Information Technology Capital Assets..........   435
      Section 1062--Restriction on Department of Defense 
        Relocation of Missions or Functions from Cheyenne 
        Mountain Air Force Station...............................   435
      Section 1063--Technical and Clerical Amendments............   436
      Section 1064--Submission to Congress of Revision to 
        Regulation on Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, 
        Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees..................   436
      Section 1065--Authorization of Appropriations for Payments 
        to Portuguese Nationals Employed by the Department of 
        Defense..................................................   436
      Section 1066--State Defense Force Improvement..............   436
      Section 1067--Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New 
        Jersey...................................................   436
      Section 1068--Sense of Congress Regarding the Roles and 
        Mission of the Department of Defense and Other National 
        Security Institutions....................................   437
      Section 1069--Sense of Congress Relating to 2008 
        Supplemental Appropriations..............................   437
      Section 1070--Sense of Congress Regarding Defense 
        Requirements of the United States........................   437

TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   437
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   437
      Implementation of Existing Policies for Medical Care for 
        Department of Defense and Non--Department of Defense 
        Civilians Injured or Wounded in Support of Contingency 
        Operations...............................................   437
      Information Technology Workforce Analysis..................   438
      Review of Medical Care for Federal Civilian Employees 
        Serving in a Contingency Operation.......................   438
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   439
      Section 1101--Temporary Authority to Waive Limitation on 
        Premium Pay for Federal Employees........................   439
      Section 1102--Extension of Authority to Make Lump-Sum 
        Severance Payments.......................................   439
      Section 1103--Extension of Voluntary Reduction-in-Force 
        Authority of Department of Defense.......................   440
      Section 1104--Technical Amendment to Definition of 
        Professional Accounting Position.........................   440
      Section 1105--Expedited Hiring Authority for Health Care 
        Professionals............................................   440
      Section 1106--Authority to Adjust Certain Limitations on 
        Personnel and Reports on Such Adjustments................   440
      Section 1107--Temporary Discretionary Authority to Grant 
        Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on 
        Official Duty in a Combat Zone...........................   441
      Section 1108--Requirement Relating to Furloughs During the 
        Time of a Contingency Operation..........................   441
      Section 1109--Direct Hire Authority for Certain Positions 
        at Personnel Demonstration Laboratories..................   441

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   441
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   441
      Combatant Commanders' Initiative Fund......................   441
      Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Iraq.............   442
      Foreign Disclosure.........................................   443
      Foreign Military Sales.....................................   443
      Graduates of the Jordanian International Police Training 
        Center...................................................   444
      Honoring and Acknowledging Service Members Redeploying from 
        Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom...   444
      Integrating Inter-agency Capabilities into Department of 
        Defense Planning for Stability Operations................   445
      Oversight of Department of Defense Policies on Iran........   445
      Reconstruction, Security, and Stabilization Assistance.....   446
      Report on Command and Control Structure for Military Forces 
        Operating in the Republic of Korea.......................   446
      Report on Efforts to Train and Equip the Afghan National 
        Security Forces..........................................   446
      Security Developments in Pakistan and Implications for 
        Afghanistan..............................................   449
      Security for Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq.......   450
      Special Inspector General for Afghanistan..................   450
      Unity of Command in Provincial Reconstruction Teams........   450
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   451
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   451
      Section 1201--Extension of Authority to Build the Capacity 
        of the Pakistan Frontier Corps...........................   451
      Section 1202--Military-to-Military Contacts and Comparable 
        Activities...............................................   451
      Section 1203--Enhanced Authority to Pay Incremental 
        Expenses for Participation of Developing Countries in 
        Combined Exercises.......................................   451
      Section 1204--Extension of Temporary Authority to Use 
        Acquisition and Cross- servicing Agreements to Lend 
        Military Equipment for Personnel Protection and 
        Survivability............................................   451
      Section 1205--One-Year Extension of Authority for 
        Distribution to Certain Foreign Personnel of Education 
        and Training Materials and Information Technology to 
        Enhance Military Interoperability........................   451
      Section 1206--Modification and Extension of Authorities 
        Relating to Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign 
        Military Forces..........................................   452
      Section 1207--Extension of Authority for Security and 
        Stabilization Assistance.................................   452
      Section 1208--Authority for Support of Special Operations 
        to Combat Terrorism......................................   452
      Section 1209--Regional Defense Combating Terrorism 
        Fellowship Program.......................................   453
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq and Afghanistan.........   453
      Section 1211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
        Certain Purposes Relating to Iraq........................   453
      Section 1212--Report on Status of Forces Agreements between 
        the United States and Iraq...............................   453
      Section 1213--Strategy for United States-Led Provincial 
        Reconstruction Teams in Iraq.............................   453
      Section 1214--Commanders' Emergency Response Program.......   454
      Section 1215--Performance Monitoring System for United 
        States-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan   454
      Section 1216--Report on Command and Control Structure for 
        Military Forces Operating in Afghanistan.................   454
      Section 1217--Report on Enhancing Security and Stability in 
        the Region along the Border of Afghanistan and Pakistan..   455
      Section 1218--Study and Report on Iraqi Police Training 
        Teams....................................................   456
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   456
      Section 1221--Payment of Personnel Expenses for 
        Multilateral Cooperation Programs........................   456
      Section 1222--Extension of Department of Defense Authority 
        to Participate in Multinational Military Centers of 
        Excellence...............................................   456
      Section 1223--Study of Limitation on Classified Contracts 
        with Foreign Companies Engaged in Space Business with 
        China....................................................   456
      Section 1224--Sense of Congress and Congressional Briefings 
        on Readiness of the Armed Forces and Report on Nuclear 
        Weapons-Capabilities of Iran.............................   457

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE 
    FORMER SOVIET UNION..........................................   457
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   457
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   458
      Biological Threat Reduction................................   458
      Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project............   459
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   460
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs and Funds.......................................   460
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   460

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   466
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   466
      Advance Procurement Funding for Dry-Cargo Ammunition Ships 
        (T-AKE)..................................................   466
      Use of the National Defense Sealift Fund for Procurement of 
        New Construction Vessels in the Maritime Prepositioning 
        Force (Future)...........................................   466
    Subtitle A--Military programs................................   466
      Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................   466
      Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund................   466
      Section 1403--Defense Health Program.......................   467
      Section 1404--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 
        Defense..................................................   467
      Section 1405--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
        Activities, Defense-Wide.................................   467
      Section 1406--Defense Inspector General....................   467
    Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile.......................   467
      Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 
        Funds....................................................   467
      Section 1412--Revisions to Previously Authorized Disposals 
        from the National Defense Stockpile......................   467
    Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home.....................   468
      Section 1421--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................   468
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   468
      Section 1431--Inapplicability of Executive Order 13457.....   468

TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
    OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.......   468
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   468
  SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS................................   469
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   472
      Army Aircraft Repair and Recapitalization..................   472
      Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Operations Integration 
        Center...................................................   472
      Counter Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars Program............   473
      F-22.......................................................   473
      Global Improvised Explosive Device Threat Estimate.........   473
      Increased Army Training....................................   474
      Iraq Security Forces Fund..................................   475
      Human Terrain Team Support.................................   475
      Production Rates of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 
        Vehicles.................................................   475
      Special Operations Command Aircraft Radar Warning Receivers   476
      Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization................   476
      War Reserve Secondary Items--Prepositioned Stocks..........   477
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   477
      Section 1501--Purpose......................................   477
      Section 1502--Army Procurement.............................   477
      Section 1503--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement............   477
      Section 1504--Air Force Procurement........................   478
      Section 1505--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement..........   478
      Section 1506--Rapid Acquisition Fund.......................   478
      Section 1507--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund   478
      Section 1508--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the 
        Joint Improvised Explosive Devices Defeat Organization 
        Pending Notification to Congress.........................   478
      Section 1509--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation..   478
      Section 1510--Operation and Maintenance....................   479
      Section 1511--Other Department of Defense Programs.........   479
      Section 1512--Iraq Security Forces Fund....................   479
      Section 1513--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.............   479
      Section 1514--Military Personnel...........................   479
      Section 1515--Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund.   479
      Section 1516--Special Transfer Authority...................   479
      Section 1517--Treatment as Additional Authorizations.......   479

TITLE XVI--RECONSTRUCTION AND STABILIZATION CIVILIAN MANAGEMENT..   479
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   479
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   480
      Section 1601--Short Title..................................   480
      Section 1602--Findings.....................................   480
      Section 1603--Definitions..................................   480
      Section 1604--Authority to Provide Assistance for 
        Reconstruction and Stabilization Crises..................   480
      Section 1605--Reconstruction and Stabilization.............   481
      Section 1606--Authorities Related to Personnel.............   481
      Section 1607--Reconstruction and Stabilization Strategy....   481
      Section 1608--Annual Reports to Congress...................   481

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   481
  PURPOSE........................................................   481
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW..............   481
      Section 2001--Short Title..................................   500
      Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts 
        Required to be Specified by Law..........................   500

TITLE XXI--ARMY..................................................   500
  SUMMARY........................................................   500
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   500
      Sierra Army Depot Drinking Water...........................   500
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   500
      Planning and Design........................................   501
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   501
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   501
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   502
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   502
      Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   502
      Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2008 Projects........................   502
      Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2007 Projects........................   502
      Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2006 Projects.......................................   502
      Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2005 Projects.......................................   502

TITLE XXII--NAVY.................................................   502
  SUMMARY........................................................   502
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   503
      Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine 
        Palms, California Land Expansion.........................   503
      Planning and Design........................................   503
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   503
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   503
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   503
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   503
      Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   503
      Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2005 Project.........................   504
      Section 2206--Modification of Authority to Carry out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2007 Projects........................   504
      Section 2207--Report on Impacts of Surface Ship Homeporting 
        Alternatives.............................................   504

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE...........................................   504
  SUMMARY........................................................   504
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   504
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   504
      Planning and Design........................................   505
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   505
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   505
      Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   505
      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   505
      Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   505
      Section 2305--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2006 Projects.......................................   505
      Section 2306--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2005 Projects.......................................   505

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES.....................................   506
  SUMMARY........................................................   506
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   506
      Explanation of Funding Adjustments.........................   506
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   508
    Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations....................   508
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   508
      Section 2402--Energy Conservation Projects.................   508
      Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense 
        Agencies.................................................   508
      Section 2404--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2007 Project.........................   508
      Section 2405--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2005 Projects........................   508
      Section 2406--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2006 Projects.......................................   508
    Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations.........   509
      Section 2411--Authorized Chemical Demilitarization Program 
        Construction and Land Acquisition Projects...............   509
      Section 2412--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 
        Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide..............   509
      Section 2413--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 1997 Projects........................   509
      Section 2414--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2000 Projects........................   509

TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
    PROGRAM......................................................   509
  SUMMARY........................................................   509
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   509
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   509
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   509

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   510
  SUMMARY........................................................   510
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   510
      Planning and Design, Army National Guard...................   510
      Planning and Design, Army Reserve..........................   510
      Planning and Design, Air National Guard....................   510
      Planning and Design, Air Reserve...........................   511
      Niagara Air Reserve Base, New York.........................   511
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISION..........................................   511
      Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction 
        and Land Acquisition Projects............................   511
      Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   511
      Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps 
        Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects.......   511
      Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction 
        and Land Acquisition Projects............................   511
      Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   511
      Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National 
        Guard and Reserve........................................   511
      Section 2607--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2006 Projects.......................................   512
      Section 2608--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 2005 Project........................................   512

TITLE XXVII--BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES.............   512
  SUMMARY........................................................   512
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   521
      Base Closure and Realignment 2005 Program Underfunding.....   521
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   521
    Subtitle A--Authorizations...................................   521
      Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base 
        Closure and Realignment Activities Funded through 
        Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990..........   521
      Section 2702--Authorized Base Closure and Realignment 
        Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base 
        Closure Account 2005.....................................   521
      Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base 
        Closure and Realignment Activities Funded through 
        Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005..........   522
    Subtitle B--Amendments to Base Closure and Related Laws......   522
      Section 2711--Repeal of Commission Approach to the 
        Development of Recommendations in Any Future Round of 
        Base Closures and Realignments...........................   522
      Section 2712--Modification of Annual Base Closure and 
        Realignment Reporting Requirements.......................   522
      Section 2713--Technical Corrections Regarding Authorized 
        Cost and Scope of Work Variations for Military 
        Construction and Military Family Housing Projects Related 
        to Base Closures and Realignments........................   523
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   523
      Section 2721--Conditions on Closure of Walter Reed Army 
        Medical Hospital and Relocation of Operations to National 
        Naval Medical Center and Fort Belvoir....................   523
      Section 2722--Report on Use of BRAC Properties as Sites for 
        Refineries or Nuclear Power Plants.......................   523

TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   523
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   523
      Defense Critical Infrastructure Program....................   523
      Facilities Sustainment.....................................   524
      Formerly Used Defense Sites Review.........................   525
      Guam Integrated Water Management System....................   525
      Joint Land Use Study at Shaw Air Force Base................   526
      Military Spouse and Families Memorial......................   526
      Recycled Materials for Road Construction and other Uses....   526
      Safe Housing for Military Families.........................   527
      Training Range Expansion...................................   527
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   527
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
        Housing Changes..........................................   527
      Section 2801--Incorporation of Principles of Sustainable 
        Design in Documents Submitted as Part of Proposed 
        Military Construction Projects...........................   527
      Section 2802--Extension of Authority to Use Operation and 
        Maintenance Funds For Construction Projects Outside the 
        United States............................................   528
      Section 2803--Revision of Maximum Lease Amount Applicable 
        to Certain Domestic Army Family Housing Leases to Reflect 
        Previously Made Annual Adjustments in Amount.............   528
      Section 2804--Use of Military Family Housing Constructed 
        Under Build and Lease Authority to House Members without 
        Dependents...............................................   528
      Section 2805--Lease of Military Family Housing to the 
        Secretary of Defense for Use as Residence................   528
      Section 2806--Repeal of Reporting Requirement in Connection 
        with Installation Vulnerability Assessments..............   528
      Section 2807--Modification of Alternative Authority for 
        Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing..........   528
      Section 2808--Report on Capturing Housing Privatization 
        Best Practices...........................................   529
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   529
      Section 2811--Clarification of Exceptions to Congressional 
        Reporting Requirements for Certain Real Property 
        Transactions.............................................   529
      Section 2812--Authority to Lease Non-Excess Property of 
        Military Departments and Defense Agencies................   529
      Section 2813--Modification of Utility System Conveyance 
        Authority................................................   529
      Section 2814--Permanent Authority to Purchase Municipal 
        Services for Military Installations in the United States.   529
      Section 2815--Defense Access Roads.........................   530
      Section 2816--Protecting Private Property Rights during 
        Department of Defense Land Acquisitions..................   530
    Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment...........   530
      Section 2821--Guam Defense Policy Review Initiative Account   530
      Section 2822--Sense of Congress regarding Use of Special 
        Purpose Entities for Military Housing Related to Guam 
        Realignment..............................................   530
      Section 2823--Sense of Congress Regarding Federal 
        Assistance to Guam.......................................   530
      Section 2824--Comptroller General Report Regarding 
        Interagency Requirements Related to Guam Realignment.....   530
      Section 2825--Energy and Environmental Design Initiatives 
        in Guam Military Construction and Installations..........   531
      Section 2826--Department of Defense Inspector General 
        Report Regarding Guam Realignment........................   531
      Section 2827--Eligibility of the Commonwealth of the 
        Northern Mariana Islands for Military Base Reuse Studies 
        and Community Planning Assistance........................   531
      Section 2828--Prevailing Wage Applicable to Guam...........   531
    Subtitle D--Energy Security..................................   531
      Section 2841--Certification of Enhanced Use Leases for 
        Energy-Related Projects..................................   531
      Section 2842--Annual Report on Department of Defense 
        Installations Energy Management..........................   531
    Subtitle E--Land Conveyances.................................   532
      Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Former Naval Air Station, 
        Alameda, California......................................   532
      Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply 
        Point, Norwalk California................................   532
      Section 2853--Land Conveyance, Former Naval Station, 
        Treasure Island, California..............................   532
      Section 2854--Condition on Lease Involving Naval Air 
        Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii...........................   532
      Section 2855--Land Conveyance, Sergeant First Class M.L. 
        Downs Army Reserve Center, Springfield, Ohio.............   532
      Section 2856--Land Conveyance, John Sevier Range, Knox 
        County, Tennessee........................................   532
      Section 2857--Land Conveyance, Bureau of Land Management 
        Land, Camp Williams, Utah................................   532
      Section 2858--Land Conveyance, Army Property, Camp 
        Williams, Utah...........................................   533
      Section 2859--Extension of Potomac Heritage National Scenic 
        Trail through Fort Belvoir, Virginia.....................   533
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   533
      Section 2871--Revised Deadline for Transfer of Arlington 
        Naval Annex to Arlington National Cemetery...............   533
      Section 2872--Decontamination and Use of Former Bombardment 
        Area on Island of Culebra................................   533
      Section 2873--Acceptance and Use of Gifts for Construction 
        of Additional Building at National Museum of the United 
        States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio..   533
      Section 2874--Establishment of Memorial to American Rangers 
        at Fort Belvoir, Virginia................................   533
      Section 2875--Lease Involving Pier on Ford Island, Pearl 
        Harbor Naval Base, Hawaii................................   534
      Section 2876--Naming of Health Facility, Fort Rucker, 
        Alabama..................................................   534

TITLE XXIX--ADDITIONAL WAR-RELATED AND EMERGENCY MILITARY 
  CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008...............   534
  SUMMARY........................................................   534
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   537
      Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   537
      Section 2902--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   537
      Section 2903--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   537
      Section 2904--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   537
      Section 2905--Termination of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal 
        Year 2008 Army Projects for which Funds Were not 
        Appropriated.............................................   537

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
    AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.....................................   537

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   537
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   537
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   561
    National Nuclear Security Administration.....................   561
      Overview...................................................   561
      Weapons Activities.........................................   561
        Assesssment of life extension programs...................   561
        Reliable Replacement Warhead.............................   561
        Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility..................   562
        Stockpile Services.......................................   562
          Research and Development Support.......................   562
          Research and Development Certification and Safety......   562
          Pit Manufacturing and Pit Manufacturing Capability.....   562
        Advanced Certification...................................   563
        Engineering Campaign.....................................   563
          Enhanced Surety........................................   563
          Enhanced Surveillance..................................   563
        Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 
          Campaign...............................................   564
        Readiness Campaign--Tritium Readiness....................   564
        Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities...............   564
          Operations of Facilities--Lawrence Livermore National 
            Laboratory...........................................   564
          Operations of Facilities--Pantex Plant.................   565
          Operations of Facilities--Y-12.........................   565
        National Nuclear Security Administration nuclear weapons 
          transport..............................................   565
        National Nuclear Technical Forensics.....................   566
        Defense Nuclear Security--Operations and Maintenance--
          Physical Security systems--Y-12........................   566
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...........................   566
        Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 
          Development............................................   567
          Radiation detection technology.........................   568
          Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Capability 
            Replacement Laboratory...............................   568
        Nonproliferation and International Security..............   568
          Global Nuclear Energy Partnership......................   568
          Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention........   569
        International Nuclear Materials Protection and 
          Cooperation............................................   569
          Second Line of Defense.................................   569
        Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production........   570
        Fissile Materials Disposition............................   570
          United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition....   570
          Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition..........   571
        Global Threat Reduction Initiative.......................   571
        Office of the United States Coordinator for the 
            Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction 
            Proliferation and Terrorism..........................   572
      Office of the Administrator................................   572
    Environmental and Other Defense Activities...................   572
      Overview...................................................   572
        Defense Environmental Cleanup............................   573
          Defense Environmental Cleanup program funding..........   573
          Federal facility agreement and consent order milestones   573
          Consolidation and disposition of surplus special 
            nuclear materials....................................   573
          Coordination of disposition efforts....................   574
          Mound Site Cleanup.....................................   574
          Low-activity waste treatment and disposition at Hanford   575
      Other Defense Activities...................................   575
          Nuclear energy--Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility..   575
      Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal.............................   576
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   576
    Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations.........   576
      Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration.....   576
      Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................   576
      Section 3103--Other Defense Activities.....................   576
      Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal...............   576
      Section 3105--Energy Security and Assurance................   576
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   576
      Section 3111--Utilization of International Contributions to 
        Russian Plutonium Disposition Program....................   576
      Section 3112--Extension of Deadline for Comptroller General 
        Report on Department of Energy Protective Force 
        Management...............................................   577

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   577
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   577
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   577
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   577

TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................   577
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   577
      Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations..............   577

TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   577
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   577
      Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal 
        Year 2009................................................   577
      Section 3502--Limitation on Export of Vessels Owned by the 
        Government of the United States for the Purpose of 
        Dismantling, Recycling, or Scrapping.....................   578
      Section 3503--Student Incentive Payment Agreements.........   578
      Section 3504--Riding Gang Member Requirements..............   578
      Section 3505--Maintenance and Repair Reimbursement Program 
        for the Maritime Security Fleet..........................   578
      Section 3506--Temporary Program Authorizing Contracts with 
        Adjunct Professors at the United States Merchant Marine 
        Academy..................................................   579
Departmental Data................................................   579
  Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   579
Committee Position...............................................   583
Communications From Other Committees.............................   583
Fiscal Data......................................................   592
  Congressional Budget Office Estimate...........................   593
  Congressional Budget Office Mandatory Cost Estimate............   593
  Committee Cost Estimate........................................   595
Compliance with House Rule XXI...................................   595
Oversight Findings...............................................   631
General Performance Goals and Objectives.........................   631
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................   632
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   632
Record Votes.....................................................   632
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   644
Additional Views.................................................   645
  Additional views of Duncan Hunter, Jim Saxton, John M. McHugh, 
    Terry Everett, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, 
    Mac Thornberry, Robin Hayes, W. Todd Akin, J. Randy Forbes, 
    Joe Wilson, Frank A. LoBiondo, Tom Cole, Rob Bishop, John 
    Kline, Phil Gingrey, Mike Rogers, Trent Franks, Bill Shuster, 
    Thelma D. Drake, K. Michael Conaway, Doug Lamborn, Robert J. 
    Wittman......................................................   645
  Additional views of Jim Marshall, Tom Cole, Rob Bishop, Michael 
    Turner.......................................................   649
  Additional views of Rob Bishop.................................   651
  Additional views of Niki Tsongas...............................   654


110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-652

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



 
 DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

                                _______
                                

  May 16, 2008.--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. 5658]

                   [Includes committee cost estimate]

    The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, 
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. 5658. 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 2009 for procurement and for research, development, test 
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2009 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working 
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2009: (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 2009 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 
2009 for the Department of Energy national security programs; 
(8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense 
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2009 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 DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL

    The President requested discretionary budget authority of 
$601.4 billion for programs in the jurisdiction of the Armed 
Services Committee for fiscal year 2009. Of this amount, $515.4 
billion was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense 
programs, $70 billion was requested as a ``bridge fund'' to 
cover costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom for the first several months of fiscal year 2009, and 
$16.0 billion was requested for Department of Energy national 
security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board.
    The committee recommends an overall discretionary 
authorization of $601.4 billion including $70.0 billion for war 
operations. The committee authorization is $232.7 million less 
than the President's request for the Department of Defense and 
an equal amount higher for the Department of Energy.
    The following table summarizes the committee's recommended 
discretionary authorizations by appropriation account and 
compares these amounts to the President's request.


                      BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

    The President's total request for the national defense 
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2009 is $612.5 billion, as 
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to 
funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050 
request includes discretionary funding for national defense 
programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary 
funding for programs that do not require additional 
authorization in fiscal year 2009, and mandatory programs.
    The fiscal year 2009 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget 
(H. Con. Res. 312) as passed by the House provides recommended 
levels of spending on national defense in three categories: 
national defense discretionary, national defense discretionary 
and mandatory, and overseas deployments and other activities. 
The fiscal year 2009 concurrent resolution recommendation for 
national defense equals the President's request.
    The following table shows amounts authorized in the bill 
compared to amounts recommended by the budget resolution for 
national defense.


                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009, is a key mechanism through which the Congress 
of the United States fulfills one of its primary 
responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 of the 
Constitution of the United States which grants Congress the 
power to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a 
Navy; and to make rules for the government and regulation of 
the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of 
Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of 
Defense generally, and over the military application of nuclear 
energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The committee 
includes in this Act the large majority of the findings and 
recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the 
current year, as informed by the experience gained over the 
previous decades of the committee's existence.
    The committee remains steadfast in its continued and 
unwavering support for the men and women of the armed forces, 
the civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DOD), and 
the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The armed forces continue to be deeply engaged 
in a number of ongoing military operations around the world, 
most significantly, the wars in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq. The committee is deeply 
committed to including in this Act a full authorization for the 
funding required to restore the readiness of our military; 
sustain and improve the armed forces; enhance the quality of 
life of military service members; and properly safeguard the 
national security of the United States.
    The committee's recommendations for H.R. 5658 are focused 
first and foremost on readiness, as was the case with the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. After 
more than six years at war and with the recent increase in 
operational tempo associated with the surge of military forces 
to Iraq, the strain of ongoing military operations is taking an 
especially heavy toll on the Department of Defense. DOD's 
reports on the state of readiness of our ground forces remain 
highly concerning, especially those of the National Guard but 
increasingly also those of units in the active duty force 
slated for near-term deployment. Recent tours of duty of an 
extended length in addition to the harsh environments in which 
military operations occur have led to exceptional wear and tear 
on military service members and their families, and on the 
equipment of the Army and Marine Corps. In this Act, the 
committee attempts to address the near-term needs of the armed 
forces first, while remaining mindful of the longer-term needs 
of the Department of Defense.

Restoring Readiness

    The committee directs nearly $2.0 billion towards unfunded 
readiness initiatives requested by the military services, 
including $932.0 million towards key readiness needs within the 
base defense budget, and over $1.0 billion more for additional 
readiness initiatives in the budget for ongoing military 
operations. The committee focuses these increased 
authorizations on unfunded depot maintenance requirements.

Taking Care of Service Members and Their Families

    The committee authorizes a pay raise of 3.9 percent, an 
increase of 0.5 percent above the budget request. This increase 
further reduces the gap in pay between the uniformed services 
and the private sector to 2.9 percent. The committee extends 
the prohibition on increasing premiums and co-pays for TRICARE 
recipients and continues to prohibit increasing user fees for 
the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. These recommendations will 
save beneficiaries $1.2 billion in healthcare costs. The 
committee continues to reject the philosophy that the only way 
to control health care cost growth is to dramatically raise 
fees in order to discourage beneficiaries from seeking care or 
participating in TRICARE.

Increasing Capabilities for Operations in Afghanistan

    The committee believes that Afghanistan is the primary 
front in the war on terror and must remain a top priority. To 
that end, the committee authorizes several provisions to 
increase our military and civilian capabilities in that 
country. The committee requires a report on possible 
modifications to the command and control structure for 
Afghanistan to better coordinate military operations and 
achieve unity of command. The committee also requires the 
Department to clearly display any funding requested for U.S. 
operations and other activities in Afghanistan in future budget 
requests, a central recommendation of the Afghanistan Study 
Group that will enable the committee to conduct the necessary 
level of oversight of funding for Afghanistan.

Requiring Burden Sharing in Iraq

    The committee believes that the time has come to begin 
shifting the burden for funding for many reconstruction 
activities that have been primarily paid for by the Department 
of Defense out of the Commanders' Emergency Response Program 
(CERP) and the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF) to the 
Government of Iraq. The Government of Iraq is unlikely to build 
the capacity to perform these tasks until at least some portion 
of the work, and the responsibility for funding it, has been 
shared. For this reason, the committee requires the Department 
to submit a report detailing how Iraq's increasing revenue is 
being included in calculating the funding request for CERP, and 
also requires more burden-sharing with Iraq by tying amounts 
for reconstruction under CERP to Iraqi contributions. 
Additionally, the Committee authorizes $1 billion, half of the 
original budget request, for training and support of the Iraqi 
Security Forces and prohibits any of those funds from being 
used for the construction or renovation of infrastructure.

Improving Interagency Coordination

    The committee believes that the way the federal government 
currently sets, coordinates, and executes its national security 
policy suffers from a lack of dependable cooperation among 
federal agencies. There are many efforts across the federal 
government to improve the interagency system, but the committee 
believes the task cannot be accomplished in a single year. In 
this bill, the committee takes steps towards improving that 
cooperation, particularly as it pertains to stability 
operations, Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and strategic 
communications. The committee further intends to work with the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs to pass significant 
legislation enhancing the ability of the Department of Defense 
and the Department of State to better coordinate in the 
fulfillment of their joint responsibilities for matters of 
national security.

Oversight and Accountability

    Oversight of contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan remains a 
central activity of the committee. The committee includes 
several recommendations of the Commission on Army Acquisition 
and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations, commonly 
known as the Gansler Commission, in this Act. These 
recommendations primarily relate to the composition, quantity, 
and quality of the acquisition workforce and the committee is 
committed to continuing recent efforts to enhance funding and 
authorities for this workforce. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 included the Acquisition 
Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007. In addition to 
providing oversight to the implementation of that Act within 
the Department of Defense, the committee intends to work with 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to extend many 
acquisition reforms enacted for the Department of Defense to 
all federal agencies.

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 the highest priority warfighting priorities in the 
ground forces, such as funding for combatant commander 
requirements and for procurement for the National Guard and for 
the reserves. The committee took steps to reverse the decline 
in the Navy's fleet by adding funding for construction of the 
tenth San Antonio class LPD-17 ship and adding funding to begin 
construction of two Virginia class submarines per year starting 
in 2010. 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 15 additional C-17 aircraft.

                                HEARINGS

    Committee consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 results from hearings 
that began on January 17, 2008, and that were completed on 
April 24, 2008. The full committee conducted 16 sessions. In 
addition, a total of 27 sessions were conducted by 6 different 
subcommittees on various titles of the bill.

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT


                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $102.7 
billion for procurement. This represents no change from the 
amount authorized for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends authorization of $102.7 billion, 
and increase of $17.6 million from the fiscal year 2009 
request.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
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 2009 contained $5.0 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $4.9 billion, a decrease of $97.1 
million, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
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


Armed reconnaissance helicopter

    The budget request contained $358.8 million for procurement 
and $80.0 million for advance procurement of the Armed 
Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH).
    The committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, cited 
ARH program execution difficulties, noted a projected doubling 
of aircraft unit costs, and recommended that the ARH program be 
terminated and a new source selection initiated, to allow more 
competitors to compete for a new ARH program.
    The ARH program was subsequently restructured, with $174.6 
million being authorized and appropriated for the procurement 
of 10 ARH aircraft for fiscal year 2008. The committee notes 
that:
          (1) The unit cost estimate for the 28 ARH aircraft 
        requested in fiscal year 2009 has increased 97 percent 
        over the unit cost estimate for fiscal year 2009 
        included in the fiscal year 2008 budget request;
          (2) The current cost estimate has not been validated 
        by the Defense Acquisition Board;
          (3) The production decision for 10 ARH aircraft in 
        fiscal year 2008 has not been made;
          (4) No testing has been accomplished on a production 
        representative ARH;
          (5) A Limited User Test has been added to the program 
        for March 2009, nine months after the currently 
        scheduled production decision;
          (6) A year-over-year production rate increase of 50 
        percent over the prior year's production rate is 
        standard acquisition practice;
          (7) The fiscal year 2009 request of 28 aircraft is 
        180 percent greater than the fiscal year 2008 program 
        of 10 aircraft; and
          (8) The production decision will be delayed from June 
        2008, until at least April 2009.
    The committee believes that a budget request for 28 
aircraft is not warranted and recommends $229.0 million for 
procurement and $43.8 million for advance procurement, a 
reduction of $129.8 million and $36.2 million, respectively, 
for procurement of 15 ARH aircraft and advance procurement of 
23 ARH aircraft. The committee also recommends a provision, 
section 114 of this Act, that limits fiscal year 2009 
expenditures pending the results of the Limited User Test.

Compact aircraft support cart for Army National Guard rotorcraft

    The budget request contained $28.1 million for aviation 
ground power units, but the request did not contain funds for 
compact aircraft support carts for Army National Guard (ARNG) 
aviation units.
    The ARNG must provide emergency domestic and homeland 
security support in addition to supporting ARNG overseas 
operations. Availability of lightweight, compact ground power 
units would provide the ARNG with important dual-use 
capability, which is currently too heavy and immobile to be 
quickly deployed.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for 
compact aircraft support carts for ARNG rotorcraft.

UH-60A to UH-60L helicopter upgrade

    The budget request contained $10.9 million for utility 
helicopter modifications, but the request did not contain funds 
for recapitalization and conversion of UH-60A to UH-60L 
helicopters as part of a 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 2009 contained $2.2 
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $2.2 billion, a decrease of $10.0 million, for 
fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 
following the table.


                        Item of Special Interest


Guided multiple launch rocket system

    The budget request contained $247.2 million for procurement 
of 1,938 rockets for the guided multiple launch rocket system 
(GMLRS).
    The committee notes that there are several significant 
pending foreign military sales contracts for this system that 
should allow for savings due to increased quantities of rockets 
in production.
    The committee recommends $237.2 million, a decrease of 
$10.0 million, for procurement of GMLRS rockets.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $3.7 
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $3.5 billion, a 
decrease of $147.9 million, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 
program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the 
Army request are discussed following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Army vehicle modernization plans

    The committee is concerned that the Army's current plan to 
field, maintain, and continuously modernize three separate 
fleets of ground combat vehicles, in addition to replacing much 
of its wheeled vehicle fleet, is unaffordable in the near- and 
mid-term and could greatly increase operational support costs 
in the long-term.
    Today, the Army supports two families of ground combat 
vehicles: the heavy mechanized force with M1 Abrams tanks, M2 
Bradley fighting vehicles, and M113 support vehicles; and the 
separate Stryker family of vehicles. In addition, the Army is 
designing a third set of ground combat vehicles for the Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) program that would begin fielding in 
fiscal year 2015. While the Army plans to replace some heavy 
brigade combat team sets of equipment with FCS vehicles, its 
current plan would only replace 15 of 31 heavy brigade sets by 
2029, requiring a long-term effort to continuously upgrade the 
M1/M2 fleet and the Stryker family of vehicles, both of which 
would remain in the Army's inventory for an indefinite period.
    The committee notes that based on historic examples, plans 
to modernize and procure new versions of any one of these 
fleets will prove expensive. The cost of doing so for all three 
fleets at the same time could require funding far in excess of 
likely Army procurement funding in the fiscal year 2010 to 
fiscal year 2020 period. The committee notes that during this 
same time period, the Army also plans to procure major elements 
of a new tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, including replacement 
of the high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle with the 
joint light tactical vehicle. In addition to procurement costs, 
the committee is concerned that the cost to the Army of the 
equipment, personnel, repair parts, and industrial base 
maintenance necessary to support three families of ground 
combat vehicles, in addition to the wheeled vehicle fleet, will 
further reduce Army funding available for other priorities.
    The committee supports the Army's overall transformation 
goals and the desired ground vehicle capabilities promised by 
the FCS program. Although the committee encourages the Army to 
accelerate mature capabilities when practical, acceleration 
efforts or program restructures should not pose additional risk 
to efforts to improve current force platforms. Upgrades to 
existing ground vehicles should continue until replacement 
vehicles are properly tested and proven to be more lethal and 
survivable than the vehicles they are intended to replace.
    The committee supports low-risk approaches to increasing 
the capability of ground combat systems, such as upgrading the 
M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley fighting vehicle, M109A6 Paladin, 
and Stryker families of vehicles. The committee is less 
inclined to support a plan that would significantly reduce 
funding for these platforms (in the expectation of their 
replacement) with FCS vehicles in the near- to mid-term, which 
the committee believes would be a high-risk approach given the 
technological and integration challenges faced by the FCS 
program. However, the committee notes that some current 
vehicles, such as the M113 family of vehicles, have 
requirements significantly less demanding than the M1 Abrams, 
M2 Bradley, and M109A6 Paladin in terms of combat capability, 
therefore the committee could support replacement of the M113 
family with FCS or Stryker vehicles.
    The committee urges the Army, as part of its fiscal year 
2010 budget review and the upcoming quadrennial defense review, 
to reexamine the proper mix of brigade combat teams and ground 
combat vehicles to ensure that the Army can adequately 
modernize and support its future family of ground combat 
systems under realistic future budget assumptions.

Small arms acquisition strategy

    The committee expects the military services to work through 
the joint acquisition process to develop and adequately 
resource a joint long-term competitive acquisition strategy for 
small arms. The committee expects that any future acquisition 
program for a next-generation handgun and next-generation 
carbine would be conducted through a full and open competitive 
process. The committee strongly encourages the Department to 
acquire the technical data rights for any approved and 
contracted solution.
    The committee is also aware the Air Force is in the process 
of generating a requirement for a next-generation, modular 
handgun system. The committee would discourage any obligation 
of funds towards this program until the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council (JROC) has approved this requirement as part 
of a joint service small arms acquisition strategy. The 
committee understands the Army is the executive agent for small 
arms procurement and should maintain that executive agency. The 
committee believes the military services should work closely 
together in developing new small arms requirements and would 
encourage the JROC to expeditiously review these requirements.

Stryker mobile gun system production delay

    The budget request contained $1.2 billion for 119 new 
Stryker vehicles and upgrades to existing Stryker vehicles. Of 
this amount, $445.8 million was requested for procurement of 79 
Stryker mobile gun system (MGS) vehicles.
    The committee notes that obligation of funds to procure 
Stryker MGS vehicles is restricted by section 117 the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181). The committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Army 
has not provided the certification required by section 117 to 
lift the restriction on obligation of funds, and that the 
Secretary of Defense has not exercised the waiver authority 
provided in the same section. The committee understands that 
failure to provide the required certification or exercise of 
the waiver will delay the production and delivery of Stryker 
MGS vehicles, requiring adjustment of requested funding. In 
addition, the committee notes that due to denial of a 
reprogramming request that the Army has identified $33.0 
million of the requested fiscal year 2009 funding as excess.
    The committee recommends $1.0 billion, a decrease of $155.8 
million, for Stryker vehicle procurement. The committee expects 
the Army to only reduce funding for Stryker MGS production and 
to prioritize Stryker vehicle survivability upgrades with the 
funds provided.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $2.3 
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee 
recommends authorization of $2.3 billion, an increase of $19.0 
million, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 
following the table.


                        Item of Special Interest


XM982 precision guided extended range artillery projectile

    The budget request contained $34.2 million for Excalibur 
XM982 precision guided extended range artillery projectiles.
    The committee notes the Excalibur I-A projectile has been 
successfully fielded in limited quantities to Operation Iraqi 
Freedom in response to an urgent operational need from theater 
and is exceeding expectations. The committee believes that 
additional funds would allow for the acceleration of production 
of this critical high demand/low density projectile, as well as 
to help stabilize the future procurement strategy which in turn 
should create cost savings based on economies of scale. The 
committee recommends the realignment of $15.0 million from PE 
64814A to increase low-rate initial production of Excalibur 
XM982 projectiles.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $49.2 million, an 
increase of $15.0 million, to continue to accelerate production 
and fielding of Excalibur XM982 projectiles.

                        Other Procurement, Army


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $11.4 
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 
authorization of $11.2 billion, a decrease of $166.1 million, 
for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
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


Army enterprise resource planning systems

    The committee is concerned about duplication of effort 
within the Army regarding implementation of multiple enterprise 
resource planning (ERP) systems. The committee believes that 
the Army should work towards consolidating their business and 
logistics transformation efforts to create an integrated 
business environment. These programs should focus on 
identifying and eliminating redundancy among programs to reduce 
costs and accelerate fielding.
    The committee believes the Army needs to establish a strong 
governance structure based on well-defined metrics of success. 
This governance structure should identify elements that are 
common across the programs and enforce a single coherent 
strategy with a synchronized master schedule. The programs 
should be restructured to allocate functionality in a manner 
that provides seamless integration of end-to-end business 
processes within a single ERP. The financial processes and data 
should be implemented in the same instance as the associated 
business practices. Asset accountability and financial 
accounting for an item should exist only in one ERP 
instantiation, otherwise there is no value-added to having an 
enterprise solution. The emphasis should be on adoption of 
common process configurations across the multiple numbers of 
ERP systems, aimed at eliminating the maximum number of legacy 
systems.
    The committee recognizes that taking such actions will have 
an impact on the ability of these programs to execute funds in 
a timely fashion. The committee supports any associated pause 
in these programs that may be necessary in order for a solution 
that achieves the goals outlined above.

Counterfire radars

    The budget request contained $107.1 million for 14 EQ-36 
counterfire radar systems.
    The committee notes that the amended fiscal year 2008 
budget request for ongoing military operations contained $174.0 
million for 12 EQ-36 systems to meet part of a theater 
operational needs statement. As a result, the full amount 
requested in fiscal year 2009 is not needed to complete the 
theater requirement for EQ-36 systems.
    The committee recommends $60.4 million, a decrease of $46.7 
million, for EQ-36 counterfire radar systems.

Defense Advanced GPS Receivers

    The budget request contained $72.1 million for acquisition 
of 30,051 Defense Advanced GPS Receivers (DAGRs).
    The committee is aware that the Army has an unfunded 
requirement for additional DAGRs beyond those currently 
programmed in the budget request for Army National Guard units 
deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. Additional funding for DAGR procurement should reduce 
the cost of each unit and increase the number of units 
available for deployment to warfighters.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 
procurement of an additional 3,000 DAGRs.

Interoperable radios for Texas Army National Guard disaster response

    The budget request contained $105.3 million for automated 
data processing equipment.
    The committee notes that standard two-way radios are a 
critical asset for the Army National Guard in domestic 
emergency response situations. The committee also notes that 
this equipment could improve interagency coordination and 
synchronization in such situations while assuring that the Army 
National Guard can better command and control units when 
operating in support of civilian agencies.
    The committee recommends $106.3 million, an increase of 
$1.0 million, for procurement of standard two-way radios for 
the Texas Army National Guard.

Multi-temperature refrigerated container system

    The budget request contained $70.8 million for field 
feeding equipment, but contained no funds to procure additional 
Multi-Temperature Refrigerated Container Systems (MTRCS).
    MTRCS is a next generation refrigeration system that would 
provide the capability to transport and store both refrigerated 
and frozen products in a single container. The committee 
recognizes this capability would minimize transportation 
requirements and improve upon space utilization. The committee 
notes this capability would benefit subsistence units and 
medical units.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million to 
procure additional MTRCS.

Non-system training device program

    The budget request contained $218.6 million to continue the 
non-system training device (NSTD) program, but included no 
funds to procure the following NTSD programs: Call for Fire II/
Joint Fires and Effects Trainer Systems (JFETS), combat skills 
simulation systems for the Ohio National Guard (ARNG), combined 
arms collective training facility instrumentation upgrades, 
Future Soldier Trainer training systems for the Texas ARNG, 
immersive group simulation virtual training systems for the 
Hawaii ARNG, Virtual Interactive Combat Environment (VICE) 
systems for the New Jersey ARNG, urban assault course 
instrumentation upgrades for the Tennessee ARNG, virtual convoy 
operation trainers for the Kentucky ARNG, and combat skills 
marksmanship trainers.
    The Army's NTSD program is an initiative to introduce 
realistic and effective training devices into individual and 
unit training settings. The committee understands there is an 
emphasis on training military personnel in urban operations and 
asymmetric tactical situations similar to those being 
experienced by soldiers in Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee supports this initiative 
and believes these programs could improve soldier 
survivability.
    The committee recommends $247.0 million for non-system 
training devices for a total increase of $28.4 million, 
including: an increase of $4.0 million for JFETS; $4.7 million 
for combat skills training systems for the Ohio ARNG; $4.0 
million for combined arms collective training instrumentation 
upgrades; $3.0 million for Future Soldier Trainer training 
systems for the Texas ARNG; $4.5 million for immersive group 
simulation virtual training systems for the Hawaii ARNG; $2.0 
million for VICE systems for the New Jersey ARNG; $1.8 million 
for urban assault course instrumentation upgrades for the 
Tennessee ARNG; $1.5 million for virtual convoy operation 
trainers for the Kentucky ARNG; and $3.0 million for combat 
skills marksmanship trainers.

Operations center technology

    The committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
contained an item of special interest urging the Army, Navy and 
Marine Corps to seek common opportunities among the services to 
procure, where possible, common command post equipment in order 
to reduce the unit cost of each system and to improve 
interoperability.
    The committee recognizes the potential success of the 
Navy's Deployable Joint Command and Control (DJC2) system which 
provides two additional networks, one top secret and one 
unclassified for use by non-governmental organizations, which 
are not provided by the Army and Marine Corps command and 
control tools. Furthermore, the DJC2 system is fully certified 
for interoperability, information assurance, transportability, 
and has completed security, environmental and electromagnetic 
interference testing.
    The committee encourages the Army and Marine Corps to 
assess the potential for DJC2 to meet their requirements for 
tactical operations centers and report back to the committee on 
those findings.

Profiler meteorological system

    The budget request contained $12.5 million for eight 
Profiler meteorological systems.
    The committee notes that funding for the Profiler program 
increased from $24.7 million in fiscal year 2007 to $88.8 
million in fiscal year 2008. Due to limited production capacity 
available, the committee is concerned that the full amount 
requested in fiscal year 2009 will face production challenges.
    The committee recommends $5.0 million, a decrease of $7.5 
million, for Profiler systems. The committee expects the Army 
to fully fund the necessary fielding support activities with 
the remaining funding, and defer procurement of the eight 
systems to fiscal year 2010.

Single channel ground and airborne radio system

    The budget request contained $84.9 million for Single 
Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) radios and 
fielding support.
    The committee notes that the Army significantly reduced its 
acquisition objective for SINCGARS radios after the budget 
request was received, and that $175.0 million of remaining 
fiscal year 2007 funding and fiscal year 2008 requested funding 
of $649.6 million is sufficient to procure the Army's revised 
acquisition objective and provide radio fielding support.
    The committee also notes that, while the SINCGARS program 
is currently an Acquisition Category (ACAT) III program, 
funding provided for SINCGARS procurement over the past four 
fiscal years is well above the Department of Defense threshold 
for classification of a program as an ACAT I activity. The 
committee urges the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics, to review the status of the SINCGARS 
program and determine whether or not it should be managed as an 
ACAT I program if the Army intends to continue to acquire 
SINCGARS radios beyond fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends no funding for SINCGARS 
procurement, a decrease of $84.9 million.

Tactical operations centers

    The budget request contained $196.2 million for tactical 
operations center (TOC) equipment and fielding support.
    The committee notes that funding for the TOC program 
increased from $237.6 million in fiscal year 2007 to $557.6 
million in fiscal year 2008. Due to limited production capacity 
available, the committee is concerned that the full amount 
requested in fiscal year 2009 will face production challenges.
    The committee recommends $147.2 million, a decrease of 
$49.0 million, for TOC equipment and fielding support.

Tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition strategy

    The committee understands the Army is requesting large 
amounts of funding through emergency supplemental 
appropriations to address immediate, near-term, and future 
tactical wheeled vehicle needs without having articulated a 
long-term acquisition strategy for the composition of the 
tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fleets. In addition to the 
thousands of light, medium, and heavy trucks and hundreds of 
armored security vehicles, the committee is aware the Army 
would purchase over 12,000 mine resistant ambush protected 
(MRAP) vehicles by the end of fiscal year 2008 and almost 2,000 
additional Stryker vehicles through fiscal year 2013. 
Concurrently, the Army and the Marine Corps continue to develop 
the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV), which would perform 
many of the same missions that current up-armored high mobility 
multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV) and MRAP vehicles now 
perform.
    The committee is aware the Army also plans to procure an 
improved HMMWV, called the evolutionary concept vehicle (ECV), 
that would provide for improvements in payload and protection 
over current up-armored HMMWVs. The committee also understands 
the HMMWV ECV could have only 30 percent commonality with 
current up-armor HMMWVs. The committee supports investments in 
product improvements for TWVs, however, the committee is 
concerned that this lack of commonality could potentially 
categorize the HMMWV ECV as a ``new start'' program and would 
subject the program to full and open competition as required by 
federal acquisition regulations. The committee is concerned 
over whether there could be a potential to prematurely 
accelerate ``point solutions'' for the JLTV program. The 
committee commends the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics for his competitive 
prototyping strategy. The committee encourages the Secretary of 
the Army, as executive agent for the JLTV program, to apply 
this policy to JLTV.
    Given the increasing diverse mix of vehicle configurations, 
fleet composition requirements, potential fiscal constraints 
and competing priorities in Future Year Defense Programs the 
committee strongly encourages the Army to articulate a long-
term acquisition and sustainment strategy for its TWV fleet 
that would maximize resources and capability, as well as 
minimize duplication of effort. The committee encourages the 
Army to reference the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and work jointly with the 
Marine Corps in developing this strategy and consider cost 
reduction strategies, reliability, and maintainability 
improvement initiatives.
    The committee is concerned that currently planned single-
year contract awards could be extremely costly for the Army, 
given the large quantity requirements that continue to exist 
within the modular force and for ``resetting the force'' to 
include the reserve component quantities. The committee notes 
that multi-year procurement contracts could potentially assure 
favorable cost-effective prices for more advanced 
configurations of current TWVs that would incorporate lessons 
learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), as well as ensure 
stability in the industrial base.

Warfighter information network--tactical

    The budget request contained $287.6 million for procurement 
of Warfighter Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T) equipment. 
Of this amount, $179.8 million was requested for procurement of 
WIN-T Increment 2 low-rate initial production.
    The committee notes that the requested WIN-T Increment 2 
funding procures significantly more sets of equipment than are 
needed for WIN-T Increment 2 testing activities in fiscal year 
2009 and does not account for possible delays or modification 
of WIN-T Increment 2 equipment subsequent to testing.
    The committee recommends $242.6 million, a decrease of 
$45.0 million, for procurement of WIN-T equipment. The 
committee expects the Army to fully fund WIN-T elements, other 
than Increment 2 equipment, requested in this procurement line.

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $496.3 
million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. 
The committee recommends transfer of this funding to title XV 
of this Act.


                       Items of Special Interest


Explosives signatures database

    Improvised explosive devices (IED) continue to be the 
primary cause of American casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom 
and Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee recognizes that 
the constantly evolving nature of this threat makes it 
difficult to develop technical solutions to counter the IED 
threat. However, since all IEDs make use of explosives, a 
highly desirable but currently elusive goal is the ability to 
chemically detect these explosives from a safe stand-off 
distance. Stand-off detection is a complex problem due, in 
part, to the variety of the explosives used (including home-
made compositions) and to the changes to chemical signatures 
that occur with exposure to different environments. Although 
the benefits of developing such a detection capability are 
obvious, there is no single database of explosive chemical 
signatures for use by those who are expert in detection 
technologies. The committee believes that the ongoing efforts 
to characterize high-explosive signatures are neither well-
coordinated nor adequately funded.
    The Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) has the 
responsibility to lead, coordinate, and advocate for all 
Department of Defense activities to defeat IEDs and is the 
appropriate organization to lead an effort to develop an 
explosives signatures database. Within funds contained, the 
committee directs the Director of JIEDDO to fund from its 
science and technology budget, at a level no less than $10.0 
million, the following activities:
          (1) Development of a standardized database of 
        explosive signatures;
          (2) Development of standard test methods for 
        characterizing explosive signatures;
          (3) Collection of existing reliable explosive 
        signature data from all national sources; and
          (4) Characterization of explosive signatures for 
        which there is no existing data.
    The committee further directs the Director of JIEDDO to 
report to the congressional defense committees on the actions 
taken, including funding, to fulfill these requirements, by 
March 15, 2009.

Unfunded counter-improvised explosive device requirements and needs

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
efforts to defeat the threat posed by improvised explosive 
devices (IED), which continue to be the primary cause of 
casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom and have been used as a weapon of asymmetric warfare 
and terror in other parts of the world. To date, Congress has 
provided over $10.0 billion for the Joint IED Defeat 
Organization (JIEDDO) to lead, advocate for, and coordinate all 
DOD counter-IED efforts. Despite the magnitude of this effort, 
the committee understands that there may be useful IED 
countermeasures that have not been funded for a number of 
reasons: some IED countermeasures may currently be a low 
priority for the U.S. Central Command; there may be 
insufficient funding; or the technologies may be immature. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of JIEDDO to 
submit a report by March 15, 2009, to the congressional defense 
committees that describes in detail unfunded counter-IED 
requirements and needs, including any plans to address the 
unfunded requirements and needs in future budgets.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $14.7 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $14.6 billion, a decrease of $89.5 
million, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
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


Electronic warfare system core depot development

    The budget request contained $66.4 million for common 
electronic counter-measures equipment (ECM), but contained no 
funds for establishing a core depot maintenance capability for 
the ALQ-214 ECM system employed on Navy and Marine Corps 
tactical aircraft.
    The committee notes that depot maintenance for the ALQ-214 
ECM system is experiencing a 180- to 240-day repair turnaround 
time. Establishing an organic depot maintenance capability 
should reduce the turnaround time to 30 to 45 days. The 
committee understands that section 2464 of title 10, United 
States Code, provides that a core depot maintenance capability 
must be established no later than four years after initial 
operational capability (IOC) is achieved for mission-essential 
weapons systems designated by the Secretary of Defense. The 
committee understands that IOC was achieved for the ALQ-214 ECM 
system in March 2006, and that core depot maintenance 
capability should be established by March 2010.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for 
common electronic counter-measures equipment to begin 
establishment of core depot maintenance capability for the ALQ-
214 ECM system.

F/A-18E/F and EA-18G

    The budget request contained $1.6 billion for procurement 
of 22 EA-18G aircraft and $1.9 billion for procurement of 23 F/
A-18E/F aircraft. The EA-18G is an electronic attack aircraft 
designed to replace the EA-6B, and the F/A-18E/F is a strike 
fighter designed for fighter escort, fleet air defense, 
interdiction, and close air support missions. The EA-18G and F/
A-18E/F are produced on the same production line.
    The committee notes that a foreign military sales customer 
has committed to the procurement of 24 F/A-18E/F aircraft in 
fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The committee understands that this 
increase in production will lower unit costs and generate a 
total savings of $182.0 million for the 85 EA-18Gs and F/A-18E/
Fs to be procured in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The committee 
believes that $90.0 million in savings in fiscal year 2009 
exceeds requirements for the procurement of EA-18Gs and F/A-
18E/Fs in fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends $1.6 billion, a decrease of $45.0 
million, for procurement of 22 EA-18G aircraft; and $1.8 
billion, a decrease of $45.0 million, for procurement of 23 F/
A-18E/F aircraft.

Navy helicopter force structure

    The committee believes that vertical lift remains an 
essential capability for the Navy to meet the unique demands of 
operations in the maritime environment. However, with the 
retirement of the MH-53E beginning in 2016, the Navy will lose 
all vertical lift capability beyond that provided by the MH-60 
series. Moreover, the committee notes that the aging MH-53E 
remains one of the most expensive aircraft to operate and 
maintain in the Navy inventory and is undergoing engine 
upgrades to improve operational availability.
    Further, the committee is aware of several mission areas in 
which a heavy medium-lift or light heavy-lift helicopter could 
provide substantial utility, such as airborne mine 
countermeasures, combat search and rescue, special operations, 
vertical onboard delivery, airborne re-supply/logistics for sea 
basing, maritime homeland defense or humanitarian relief 
missions.
    The committee notes that in testimony before the committee 
on March 6, 2008, the Chief of Naval Operations stated that 
U.S. Fleet Forces Command is currently performing a study of 
the Navy's vertical lift requirements to inform planning for 
the fiscal year 2010 budget request. The committee supports 
this effort and requests that the Secretary of the Navy include 
an assessment of the potential benefits of a new type/model/
series helicopter that is larger than the H-60 in such an 
analysis. The committee recommends that the Secretary include 
consideration of the mission areas referenced above and such 
factors as range, payload, time on station, manpower, and 
operation and maintenance costs. The committee directs the 
Secretary to submit a copy of this study to the congressional 
defense committees by November 30, 2008.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $3.6 
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $3.6 billion, the requested amount, for fiscal 
year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table 
below.


             Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $1.1 
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps. The 
committee recommends authorization of $1.1 billion, the 
requested amount, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are 
identified in the table below.


                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $12.7 
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee 
recommends authorization of $12.9 billion, an increase of 
$185.0 million, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Aircraft carrier force structure

    The committee notes that section 5062 of title 10, United 
States Code, requires the Department of Defense to maintain 11 
active aircraft carriers. The committee is aware that the 
Department of Defense requested legislative relief to waive 
this statutory requirement for the period between the proposed 
decommissioning of the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and the initial 
operating capability of the USS Ford (CVN-78). The committee is 
concerned with the position of the Department of Defense, 
especially since the Department recently reached a compromise 
with Congress to reduce the statutory requirement from 12 
aircraft carriers to 11 in section 1011 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364). Moreover, the committee notes that the period 
between the proposed decommissioning of CVN-65 and the initial 
operating capability of CVN-78 will be a minimum of 33 months 
and may be more than 4 years, depending on the construction 
progress of the first-of-class CVN-78 and its post-
commissioning testing and evaluation period.
    Consequently, the committee rejects the request of the 
Department to allow a waiver to section 5062 of title 10, 
United States Code, for the purpose of retiring CVN-65 in 
fiscal year 2013. However, the committee understands that there 
are significant schedule and cost implications associated with 
a depot maintenance period which would be necessary to maintain 
CVN-65 in active service after fiscal year 2013 and that, even 
with an overhaul, the CVN-65 has limited nuclear fuel life.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on 
the cost and potential schedule implications of either 
returning USS Kennedy (CV-67) to service or retaining USS Kitty 
Hawk (CV-63) in service during the period between the scheduled 
retirement of CVN-65 and the commissioning of CVN-78. The 
committee directs the Secretary to include in the report the 
number and location of dry-docks in United States shipyards, 
both public and private, which have the capacity to dock and 
make repairs to either CV-63 or CV-67.
    The report should be submitted within 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, but in any event not later than 
February 3, 2009.

Attack submarine force structure requirements

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to 
assess the total number of attack submarines required to 
fulfill the missions of the Department of Defense and to 
support the national defense strategy, as part of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) conducted in fiscal year 2009 
pursuant to section 118 of title 10, United States Code. Such 
an assessment should be based upon an analysis and 
prioritization of unconstrained attack submarine requirements, 
sorted by mission, provided by the combatant commanders. The 
committee further directs that results of such an assessment be 
included in the report on the quadrennial defense review, 
submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services in accordance with section 
118(d) of title 10, United States Code.

Service-life extension of SSN-688 Los Angeles class hulls

    The committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy 
has conducted an assessment of the feasibility of extending the 
service life of certain SSN-688 Los Angeles class submarines in 
order to mitigate the projected shortfall in the Navy's attack 
submarine force structure. The committee is encouraged by this 
effort, but notes that the assessment did not explore options 
that would increase the number of attack submarines above 48, 
in the long-term. The committee also notes that the assessment 
did not explore options for limiting deployments or other 
actions that could limit hull fatigue in the near term, in 
order to conserve service life of more Los Angeles class 
submarines over the long-term.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report which includes an assessment of the 
feasibility and cost of extending the service life of all 
current Los Angeles class submarines. This report should 
explore the options in the near term which would fully utilize 
all available hull life and maximize the total number of attack 
submarines available after 2016. The committee directs the 
Secretary to submit this report within 120 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.

U.S. Navy shipbuilding plan

    The committee remains concerned with the totality of the 
Navy shipbuilding plan. The committee is not confident that the 
current mix of planned ship procurement is the most effective 
way to balance the need for quantity versus capability across 
the spectrum of naval requirements. Considering likely budget 
constraints for shipbuilding procurement, it is evident that 
the long-range plan is unaffordable.
    The committee is also concerned with short-term 
affordability. The key to efficient shipbuilding is stability 
in programs and commonality between programs. With stability, 
the shipbuilder can reasonably invest in infrastructure 
improvements for increased efficiency. Commonality allows 
savings in order quantity across programs as well as life-cycle 
savings in maintenance and repair parts. The goal of a 313-ship 
fleet will never be achieved until very difficult decisions are 
made concerning quantity, capability, affordability, and 
stability.
    The committee remains committed to building a capable naval 
force in sufficient quantity to protect the nation's interests. 
This force must consist of major combatant vessels with 
multiple warfighting capabilities. It must also include ships 
with specific roles and missions, from operations in the 
littoral regions, to the projection of power ashore from a sea-
base. The balance of capabilities within this force and the 
affordability of sustaining this force is the key task before 
both the Navy and Congress throughout the foreseeable future.
    The committee disagrees with the submitted Future Years 
Defense Plan and budget request for: canceling the Amphibious 
Landing Ship-Dock (LPD 17) program at 9 ships; canceling the 
procurement of the 13th and 14th Dry Cargo Ammunition Ships (T-
AKE); not requesting funding to increase the build rate of 
Virginia class submarines to 2 ships per year starting in 2010; 
and the failure to deliver a coherent strategy for Littoral 
Combat Ship acquisition.
    The committee authorizes a reallocation of funding in the 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account and the National 
Defense Sealift Fund. The committee recommends: full funding 
for the 10th ship of the LPD 17 class; an increase in advance 
procurement funding for the Virginia class submarine program, 
necessary for the procurement of 2 ships in fiscal year 2010; 
advance procurement for the final 2 ships of the T-AKE class; 
and advance procurement for the construction of DDG 51 class 
destroyers or DDG 1000 class destroyers. The committee notes 
that due to the overall delay in the DDG 1000 destroyer 
program, the Navy would be unable to execute the full funding 
request in fiscal year 2009 for the third ship of the planned 
seven ship class. Additionally, the committee is concerned with 
potential significant cost overruns in the DDG 1000 program and 
considers it prudent to pause the program until technological 
challenges are completely understood.
    The committee authorizes these programs without prejudice 
to any specific program. The committee also understands the 
Navy is strongly considering re-starting the DDG 51 class 
destroyer upgraded with an improved radar system to fill an 
urgent need in ballistic missile defense. The committee would 
only support that decision if the industrial base for surface 
combatant construction is not affected. The committee expects 
the Secretary of Defense, subject to the availability of 
appropriations, to enter into advance procurement and advance 
construction contracts for the construction of surface 
combatants balanced between the two current surface combatant 
shipyards, taking into account workforce challenges still in 
effect on the Gulf Coast due to the lingering economic effects 
of Hurricane Katrina.
    The committee expects the budget submission for fiscal year 
2010 to contain a funding request for the 11th ship of the LPD 
17 class, a two-one-two build strategy (two ships in 2010, one 
ship in 2011, and two ships in 2012 and following years) for 
the Virginia class submarine program, the balance of full 
funding for the 13th T-AKE, and a comprehensive decision on the 
acquisition plan for surface combatants including the plan for 
the Littoral Combat Ship class.
    The committee expects the Navy to solve the capacity and 
capability issues of the surface combatant, amphibious warfare, 
and submarine combatant forces before beginning multiple new 
starts in programs to field the maritime prepositioning force 
(future) (MPF(F)). The committee is supportive of the 
requirement to constitute a seabase with a flotilla of vessels 
from which both combatant and non-combatant operations ashore 
could be launched. However, the committee is not convinced the 
seabase should be composed of non-combatant vessels such as the 
planned MPF aviation ship (MPF LHA) and the MPF landing 
platform ship (MPF MLP). The committee directs the Secretary of 
the Navy, along with the Chief of Naval Operations and the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, to report to the congressional 
defense committees within 60 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, on the size and composition of the naval 
amphibious force necessary (without the MPF LHA and MPF MLP 
vessels) to conduct operations from a seabase, with a force 
comprising two marine expeditionary brigades (MEB).

                        Other Procurement, Navy


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $5.5 
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 
authorization of $5.5 billion, a decrease of $20.9 million, for 
fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Other Procurement, Navy programs are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Boat davit system improvements

    The budget request contained $90.7 million for landing ship 
dock (LSD) mid-life logistics support, but contained no funds 
for modifications to the LSD-41 and LSD-49 ship-class boat 
davit system.
    The committee understands the mid-life replacement for the 
original electro-mechanical double-armed strong back davit has 
been plagued by electronic and mechanical control problems 
which caused the Navy to limit use to only the manual mode. 
Because these ships form the core amphibious assault echelon, 
the operational reliability of the boat davit system is 
imperative for mission success.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.7 million for 
LSD mid-life logistics support to design and implement 
modifications to existing LSD-41 and LSD-49 boat davit systems.

CVN propeller replacement program

    The budget request contained $136.2 million in the category 
of items less than $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 newly designed propeller is 
resistant to erosion by cavitation and only requires 
refurbishment every 12 years which most closely approximates 
major dry-docking availabilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in the 
category of items less than $5.0 million, for the aircraft 
carrier propeller replacement program.

Jet fuel electric valve actuators

    The budget request contained $136.2 million in the category 
of items less than $5.0 million, but contained no funds for jet 
fuel electric valve actuators for aircraft carriers.
    The committee understands the Navy has authorized an 
upgrade to the jet fuel distribution system on Nimitz class 
aircraft carriers with electric valve actuator technology. The 
committee notes that upgrading jet fuel valves from motor-
operated to electric-operated valves should improve fuel 
service system safety, improve the reliability of the aircraft 
carrier aviation fueling system, and should reduce excessive 
maintenance costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in the 
category, items less than $5.0 million, for installation of jet 
fuel electric valve actuators for aircraft carriers.

Multi-climate protection system

    The budget request contained $17.7 million for aviation 
life support equipment, but only contained $1.0 million for 
procurement of 621 multi-climate protection (MCP) systems.
    The committee understands the MCP system is an abbreviated 
acquisition program intended to develop a modular protective 
clothing system which provides flame protection, thermal 
protection, and sufficient insulation while reducing heat 
stress and bulk commonly associated with cold weather clothing 
systems. The committee notes that the Navy requirement is for 
25,000 MCP systems but only procured and fielded 6,250 MCP 
systems to date.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million, for 
aviation life support equipment to procure additional MCP 
systems.

Surface ship SPQ-9B radar improvements

    The budget request contained $9.3 million for SPQ-9B 
radars, but contained no funds to upgrade the radar to detect 
sea-skimmer missiles and low observable threats.
    The committee understands that the SPQ-9B radar provides 
early warning for threats near the horizon during surveillance 
missions and complements the capabilities of the Aegis SPY-1 
radar system. The committee notes there are radar upgrades 
available, but not currently installed, that can: increase the 
probability of the SPQ-9B radar detecting low-observable, sea-
skimmer missiles; increase the tracking ability for gunfire 
control against surface targets; assist ship control in 
restricted waters; and complement the Aegis SPY-1 radar system 
during surveillance missions.
    The committee recommends $14.7 million, an increase of $5.4 
million, to upgrade the SPQ-9B surface ship radar.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $1.5 
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1.3 billion, a decrease of $216.4 million, 
for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
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


Abrams tank total integrated engine revitalization program strategy for 
        Marine Corps Abrams tanks

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the 
committee encouraged the Army to adopt the total integrated 
engine revitalization (TIGER) program for Army and Army 
National Guard M1 Abrams tanks. The TIGER program for the M1 
Abrams tank is an integrated engine maintenance program that 
leverages manufacturing improvements, supply chain management 
efficiencies, and condition-based maintenance initiatives to 
increase the service life of the M1 Abrams tank engine from 700 
to 1,400 hours. The committee notes that the Army is currently 
working towards modernizing the Army and Army National Guard 
Abrams fleet with TIGER engines.
    Accordingly, the committee encourages the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps to coordinate with the Chief of Staff of the Army 
to develop and fund a plan that utilizes the TIGER integrated 
engine maintenance program to modernize the entire Abrams 
engine tank fleet, including Marine Corps Abrams tanks, with 
TIGER engines by 2010.

Chemical biological incident response force

    The budget request contained $6.6 million for the 
procurement of field medical equipment, but contained no funds 
to provide for new command and control or personal protective 
equipment for the Chemical and Biological Incident Response 
Force (CBIRF).
    The committee is concerned that the proliferation of new 
response capabilities for chemical, biological, radiological 
and nuclear (CBRN) events is occurring in an enthusiastic but 
uncoordinated fashion. This is particularly disconcerting as 
the committee believes that this has happened to the detriment 
of the CBIRF, a superb capability within the Marine Corps that 
has existed and matured over the past 10 years.
    The committee reiterates its strong support for section 
1815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181) and urges the Department to also 
include:
          (1) A description of all of the units within the 
        active, reserve, and guard that would have a role in 
        responding to CBRN attack;
          (2) Specific roles and capabilities for each of these 
        units; and
          (3) Current status of each of these units, including 
        manpower and equipping.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for 
the procurement of three Emergency Response Vehicles, as well 
as additional personal protective equipment to replace aging 
systems.

Marine Corps radio systems

    The budget request contained $95.8 million for Marine Corps 
radio systems.
    The committee supports continued improvements in Marine 
Corps tactical communications capability. However, the 
committee notes that funding for Marine Corps radio systems in 
fiscal year 2007 was $826.1 million and $518.5 million in 
fiscal year 2008, and that funding provided through 2008 will 
procure the Marine Corps identified requirements. The committee 
also notes that there are significant unobligated balances for 
both fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 due to contract 
delays and production limitations.
    The committee recommends $47.9 million, a decrease of $47.9 
million, for Marine Corps radio systems. The committee urges 
the Marine Corps to pursue any additional needed funding in 
fiscal year 2010.

Unit operations centers

    The budget request contained $14.9 million for procurement 
of Marine Corps unit operations center equipment.
    The committee notes that $151.1 million was provided for 
unit operations center equipment in fiscal year 2008, and that 
current projections show execution of less than half that 
funding by the end of fiscal year 2008.
    The committee recommends $7.9 million, a decrease of $7.0 
million, for unit operations center procurement.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $12.7 
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $12.6 billion, a decrease of $57.8 
million, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
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


Air National Guard RC-26B modernization

    The budget request contained $151.9 million for other 
aircraft modifications, but contained no funds to design, 
install, and test one RC-26B aircraft with the block 20 
software and hardware modifications and the beyond-line-of-
sight (BLOS) data link modification.
    The RC-26B is a low-density, high-demand intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance platform that can be rapidly 
deployed for operations in the United States and overseas. The 
block 20 hardware and software modifications would allow the 
RC-26B's mission equipment to fully utilize accurate position 
information and the BLOS data link modification would add a 
capability to pass real-time data to ground terminals. The 
committee notes that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau has 
included both the block 20 software and hardware modifications 
and the BLOS data link among his essential 10 equipment 
requirements for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends $154.9 million for other aircraft 
modifications, an increase of $3.0 million, to design, install, 
and test one RC-26B with the block 20 software and hardware 
modifications and the BLOS data link modification.

KC-45 aerial refueling aircraft program

    The budget request contained $893.5 million to initiate 
systems design and demonstration to begin replacement of the 
KC-135 aerial refueling fleet, a fleet that averages 47 years 
old. The committee notes that the Air Force has prior year 
appropriations of $421.7 million available for the KC-45 
program.
    The committee supports the Air Force's number one 
acquisition program of tanker recapitalization and understands 
that the ability to aerially refuel aircraft during military 
operations is a critical capability in meeting national 
military strategy objectives.
    The committee includes three provisions in title I of this 
Act, sections 132, 133, and 134. Section 132 would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to maintain a minimum of 46 KC-135E 
aircraft in Type-1000 storage to alleviate the challenges of 
maintaining the current fleet of KC-135R aircraft due to parts 
obsolescence issues and diminishing manufacturing sources of 
supply. Section 133 would repeal section 135 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136), associated the KC-X tanker lease program, which was not 
executed and no longer applies. Section 134 would require the 
Air Force Secretary to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees by December 1, 2008, that examines the 
processes used to determine KC-X requirements and provides an 
evaluation of very large tanker aircraft as a potential Air 
Force aerial refueling platform.
    The committee also recommends, without prejudice to the KC-
45 program, a decrease of $61.7 million for advanced 
procurement funding, because advanced procurement funding is 
not required for KC-45 program execution.

Mission support aircraft

    The budget request contained no funding for C-40 aircraft. 
The Air Force unfunded requirements list contained $370.0 
million for procurement of three C-40 aircraft.
    The committee notes the Air Force has a validated 
operational requirement to provide worldwide air transportation 
for executive branch officials and high-ranking U.S. 
dignitaries as well as other operational support missions. The 
committee understands that in fiscal year 2007, one-third of 
all requests for special mission airlift support aircraft went 
unfilled due to current fleet limitations and performance 
characteristics of the C-9 aircraft. The committee notes that 
the C-9 will be retired from the Air Force inventory in fiscal 
year 2011 and that no planned replacement aircraft exists.
    The committee recommends $88.0 million for procurement of 
one C-40C aircraft to replace one C-9C aircraft, currently at 
Scott AFB, scheduled for retirement in fiscal year 2011.

Special Operations Command aircraft recapitalization

    The budget request contained $507.7 million for HC-130J and 
MC-130J recapitalization, and $80.0 million for advanced 
procurement for HC-130J and MC-130J in fiscal year 2010. The 
budget request also contained $36.3 million to modify MC-130J 
aircraft to meet requirements for Special Operations Command's 
(SOCOM) MC-130J aircraft to conduct operations in low-
visibility conditions. The MC-130J will replace Special 
Operations Command's MC-130E and MC-130P fleets.
    The committee notes that the average age for the MC-130E 
and MC-130P fleet is 43 and 40 years, respectively. The 
committee understands that SOCOM has a requirement to field 11 
MC-130J aircraft prior to fiscal year 2012 to maintain adequate 
mission capability. The committee further understands that all 
11 MC-130Js must be funded no later than fiscal year 2010 to 
meet the SOCOM requirement.
    The committee notes that the current MC-130J acquisition 
plan includes a total of eight MC-130J aircraft for Special 
Operations Command in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The committee 
is concerned, however, that this plan may fail to adequately 
meet SOCOM's warfighting requirement, since a total of 11 MC-
130Js may not be planned for acquisition by fiscal year 2010.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on 
the Department of the Air Force's and SOCOM's plan to 
recapitalize the MC-130E and MC-130P fleets with the MC-130J as 
it relates to meeting the SOCOM MC-130J force structure 
requirement. The report shall be provided to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 2009.

Strategic airlift aircraft programs

    The budget request contained $561.9 million for C-5 
aircraft modernization programs. The Air Force Chief of Staff 
included $3.9 billion on the Air Force unfunded priority list 
for procurement of 15 additional C-17 aircraft.
    The committee notes that on September 27, 2007, the 
Secretary of the Air Force notified Congress that the C-5 
Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP) 
experienced a critical Nunn-McCurdy cost growth breach of 48 
percent above the current program acquisition unit cost (PAUC), 
and 68 percent above the original PAUC established in fiscal 
year 2000. The committee notes that on February 14, 2008, the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics (USD(AT&L)) certified the C-5 RERP program to 
Congress during the Nunn-McCurdy process. The committee 
understands that USD(AT&L) concluded that a program to perform 
RERP on only 52 C-5B/C aircraft and perform only the Avionics 
Modernization Program on the remaining 59 C-5A aircraft is the 
most cost-effective solution to meet airlift requirements 
contained in the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS).
    In written testimony to the Subcommittee on Air and Land 
Forces on March 11, 2008, USD(AT&L) stated that the 2005 MCS 
concluded that a ``fleet of 112 modernized C-5s, provided 
sufficient strategic airlift capacity'' to meet the 
Department's future airlift requirements. However, the 
committee notes that the 2005 MCS actually stated that a fleet 
of ``112 modernized and reliability improved C-5s'' meets the 
Department's strategic airlift requirements. The committee is 
extremely concerned that the newly certified RERP program 
conflicts with the recommendations of the 2005 Mobility 
Capabilities Study that USD(AT&L) states was used as the 
analytical basis for determining C-5 inventory requirements.
    The committee's concern is validated by written testimony 
of the Commander, Air Mobility Command to the Subcommittee on 
Air and Land Forces on April 1, 2008, that states ``the current 
program for 190 C-17s, 52 RERP modified C-5s, and 59 legacy C-
5As will not quite provide the organic strategic airlift 
capacity of 33.95 million ton miles per day specified by the 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council. Therefore, we remain 
concerned and vigilant that given the dynamic nature of our 
world and the increasing imperative for rapid warfighter 
response, coupled with the fact that our current strategic 
airlift baseline is based upon a three-year old MCS, that we 
have the correct balance.''
    The committee is extremely concerned by the 
shortsightedness of the MCS used by the Department to make 
critical decisions concerning the C-17 production line because 
the MCS did not: take into account the end strength increases 
of 92,000 personnel for the Army and Marine Corps; consider any 
mobility requirements of the Army's Future Combat Systems and 
modularity concepts of employment; consider the fact that the 
Army Manned-Ground Vehicle is too large to be transported by a 
C-130 aircraft; consider the 159 percent over-utilization rate 
of the current fleet of C-17 aircraft; consider the use of C-
17s in multi-use roles for which the C-17 is being used 
extensively in current operations; have or use historical 
mobility forces operational data in its analysis to verify 
actual mobility requirements and operations.
    The committee understands that the Department is conducting 
the 2008 Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study (MCRS) to 
determine the appropriate inventory requirements for airlift 
and sealift to meet the National Defense Strategy. The 
committee notes that the estimated completion date of the 2008 
MCRS is May 2009. The committee is extremely disappointed by 
the Department's decision to set a completion date for the 
study one month prior to delivery of the final production C-17 
in June 2009. The committee also notes that the Department's 
2008 MCRS will not be completed in time to inform the 
President's fiscal year 2010 budget request to Congress.
    To compensate for the Department's decision-making and 
planning process concerning strategic airlift production and 
force structure requirements, the committee recommends $3.9 
billion in title XV of this Act for procurement of 15 
additional C-17s. Additionally, the committee strongly 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to program funding for 
additional C-17 aircraft in subsequent budget requests if the 
Department determines during the 2008 MRCS execution process 
that procuring additional C-17 aircraft is required to meet the 
National Defense Strategy. The committee also recommends a 
decrease of $86.7 million to RERP funding due to the 
Department's stated inability to execute this amount in fiscal 
year 2009.
    The committee also includes a provision, section 131, in 
title I of this Act that would allow the Secretary of the Air 
Force to retire C-5 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.
    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. Additionally, the 
committee understands 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 (Public 
Law 109-364), the C-17 delivery schedule changed due to 
additional C-17 foreign military sales which will impact the 
Secretary of the Air Force complying with section 8062(g) of 
title 10, United States Code.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $894.5 
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $994.5 million, an increase of 
$40.0 million, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in 
the table below.


                     Missile Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $5.5 
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $5.5 billion, the requested amount, 
for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the 
table below.


                      Other Procurement, Air Force


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $16.1 
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee 
recommends authorization of $16.1 billion, an increase of $6.5 
million, for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the 
table below. Major changes to the Air Force request are 
discussed following the table.


                        Item of Special Interest


General information technology

    The budget request contained $100.1 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. The SELDI program 
also 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 in 
spare parts configuration discrepancies and elimination of 
unnecessary landing gear overhaul process operations. In the 
committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 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.
    The IMPACT program is working to calibrate, validate, and 
certify the existing thermal spray equipment used in the 
advanced coating systems process and to identify candidate 
parts that could be overhauled with this process. As a result 
of much more stringent permissible exposure limits to chemical 
byproducts of chrome plating processes, Warner Robins Air 
Logistics Center will be required to migrate to a new process 
known as advanced coating systems. In addition to reduced 
chemical exposure, the committee understands that the advanced 
coating systems process will offer improved durability of 40 to 
50 percent, lower life-cycle costs for those components treated 
with this process, and reduced repair processing times by 20 to 
40 percent. In the committee report (H. Rept 110-146) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008, the committee recommended an increase for the IMPACT 
program and continues to believe it will help to reduce 
hazardous exposure, improve component durability, and lower 
life-cycle costs. To accelerate the IMPACT program, the 
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million.
    The committee recommends $104.1 million, an increase of 
$4.0 million, for general information technology.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $3.2 
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends 
authorization of $3.5 billion, an increase of $321.2 million, 
for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table 
below. Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed 
following the table.


                       Items of Special Interest


Standard Missile-3 interceptors

    The budget request contained no funds for advanced 
procurement of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors.
    Consistent with the findings of the Joint Capabilities Mix 
Study II, which indicated that the combatant commanders 
require, at minimum, twice as many SM-3 interceptors than the 
133 now planned, the committee strongly supports efforts to 
increase production of SM-3 interceptors to counter the threat 
from short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
    In accordance with section 223 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
the committee recommends the transfer of $56.0 million of the 
funds from PE 63892C for advanced procurement of SM-3 
interceptors to be executed by the Missile Defense Agency.
    Furthermore, the committee recommends an additional 
increase of $55.0 million for SM-3 production. Of this amount, 
$20.0 million is for facility upgrades that will increase the 
capacity to manufacture 4 or more SM-3 missiles per month in 
fiscal year 2010, and $35.0 million is for long-lead 
procurement of an additional 12 SM-3 missiles.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a total increase of 
$111.0 million for procurement of SM-3 interceptors.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense procurement

    The budget request contained no funds for advanced 
procurement for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) 
Fire Units #3 and #4.
    Consistent with the findings of the Joint Capabilities Mix 
Study II, which indicated that the combatant commanders require 
twice as many THAAD interceptors than the 96 now planned, the 
committee recommends an increase of funds for THAAD production.
    In accordance with section 223 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
the committee recommends the transfer of $65.0 million of the 
funds in PE 63881C for the procurement of advanced components 
for THAAD Fire Units #3 and #4 to be executed by the Missile 
Defense Agency.
    Furthermore, the committee recommends an additional $75.0 
million to begin long-lead procurement of additional THAAD 
interceptors and the ground segments.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a total increase of 
$140.0 million for advanced procurement of THAAD Fire Units #3 
and #4.

                         Rapid Acquisition Fund


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $102.0 
million for Rapid Acquisition Fund. The committee recommends 
authorization of $50.0 million and a transfer of $102.0 million 
to title XV of this Act.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment


                                Overview

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 contained $8.9 
billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment. The committee 
recommends authorization of $9.7 billion, an increase of $800.0 
million, for fiscal year 2009.
    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 and reserve forces are no longer a strategic 
reserve component but are now considered an operational reserve 
force. Further, the committee notes that many non-deployed 
national guard and reserve units have significant equipment 
shortages compared to required equipment levels, caused by a 
combination of increases in required equipment, the need to 
prioritize equipment going to deployed forces, and changes in 
Army standards for substitute equipment. While the Army has 
articulated a plan to address this issue, the committee is 
concerned that the current timelines for doing so are too long 
and pose too much risk in the event of a large-scale national 
emergency or unanticipated overseas deployment requirement. As 
a result, the committee authorizes additional funding for 
equipment.
    The committee is aware the 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 will continue for some 
national guard and reserve component units. In addition, the 
committee notes that in past budget years, despite plans to 
provide significant equipment to the National Guard and 
reserves, that the promised funding and equipment has not 
actually reached national guard and reserve units due to 
changes in Army priorities. The committee urges the Army to 
create better audit and tracking procedures for funds provided 
by Congress for reserve component equipment to ensure that the 
equipment needs of the national guard and reserves are 
appropriately addressed.
    The committee is aware that equipment items on the Army's 
unfunded priority list for fiscal year 2009 are considered to 
be critical dual-purpose unfunded equipment programs for the 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve. The committee expects 
funds authorized in this section would be used in some capacity 
to address funding shortfalls for these unfunded programs. The 
committee strongly believes the National Guard and reserve 
components should receive an equitable share of funding and 
equipment distribution and that reserve components should be 
better integrated into the equipping process.


                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


           Sections 101-104--Authorization of Appropriations

    These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 
2009 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

           Section 105--National Guard and Reserve Equipment

    This section would authorize $800.0 million for the 
procurement of aircraft, missiles, wheeled and tracked combat 
vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, small arms, 
tactical radios, non-system training devices, logistic 
automation systems, and other critical procurement items for 
the national guard and reserve forces.

                  Section 106--Rapid Acquisition Fund

    This section would authorize $50.0 million for the Rapid 
Acquisition Fund. The committee expects these funds would be 
made available as part of a U.S. Central Command Rapid 
Acquisition Fund that would be used by the Commander, U.S. 
Central Command, to rapidly address unforeseen, joint urgent 
operational needs. The committee notes that additional funding 
for the Rapid Acquisition Fund is authorized in title XV of 
this Act.

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs


Section 111--Separate Procurement Line Items for Future Combat Systems 
                                Program

    This section would require, beginning with the Fiscal Year 
2010 President's Budget Request, separate procurement lines for 
five classes of equipment planned for procurement under the 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. These classes would be FCS 
manned ground vehicles, FCS unmanned ground vehicles, FCS 
unmanned aerial vehicles, FCS unattended ground systems, and 
other FCS elements.

 Section 112--Restriction on Contract Awards for Major Elements of the 
                     Future Combat Systems Program

    This section would prohibit the Army from awarding a 
contract for low-rate production or full-rate production for 
major elements of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program to 
entities serving in the role of a lead systems integrator for 
the FCS program.

Section 113--Restriction on Obligation of Funds for Army Tactical Radio 
                             Pending Report

    This section would require a report from the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, Networks and Information Integration, 
regarding Army tactical radio fielding plans and whether they 
are properly aligned to create the future battlefield network 
envisioned by the Army, as well as the future role of joint 
tactical radios in such a network. The report would be due to 
Congress by March 30, 2009. This section would prohibit 
obligation of 25 percent of the funds for tactical radios until 
the required report is received.

 Secton 114--Restriction on Obligation of Procurement Funds for Armed 
        Reconnaissance Helicopter Program Pending Certification

    This section would limit the obligation of funding for the 
Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) for fiscal year 2009 to 
not more than 20 percent of the authorized funding until 30 
days after the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics (USD/AT&L) certifies to the 
congressional defense committees that the ARH has 
satisfactorily completed a Limited User Test and has been 
approved by the USD/AT&L to enter production.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs


 Section 121--Refueling and Complex Overhaul of the U.S.S. ``Theodore 
                              Roosevelt''

    This section would authorize the refueling and complex 
overhaul (RCOH) of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Theodore 
Roosevelt to commence in fiscal year 2009 and would authorize 
the first of three increments of funding planned for the RCOH.

     Section 122--Applicability of Previous Teaming Agreements for 
                  ``Virginia''-Class Submarine Program

    This section would modify the multi-year procurement 
authority granted in the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense 
Authorization Act (Public Law 110-181) to include the 
requirement that any multi-year contract entered into between 
the Navy and the shipbuilders must specify that the previous 
teaming agreements for submarine construction between the two 
shipbuilders shall remain in effect.

               Section 123--Littoral Combat Ship Program

    This section would amend section 124 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) as amended by section 125 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) by allowing costs associated with economic inflation to 
exceed the cost cap of $460.0 million per vessel, provided that 
the increase for economic inflation does not exceed $10.0 
million per vessel. The provision would also allow costs 
associated with the introduction of new technology, not fielded 
on the first two ships of the class, provided that the 
insertion of new technology would reduce life-cycle cost of the 
vessel, or the new technology is required to meet an emergent 
warfighting threat.

 Section 124--Report on F/A-18 Procurement Costs, Comparing Multi-year 
                               to Annual

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on F/A-18 procurement to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 2009. The report would include 
the following:
          (1) The number of F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft 
        programmed for procurement for fiscal years 2010 
        through 2015;
          (2) The estimated procurement costs for those 
        aircraft, if procured through annual procurement 
        contracts;
          (3) The estimated procurement costs for those 
        aircraft, if procured through a multiyear procurement 
        contract;
          (4) The estimated savings that could be derived from 
        the procurement of those aircraft through a multiyear 
        procurement contract, and whether the Secretary 
        considers the amount of those savings to be 
        substantial;
          (5) A discussion comparing the costs and benefits of 
        obtaining those aircraft through annual procurement 
        contracts with the costs and benefits of obtaining 
        those aircraft through a multiyear procurement 
        contract; and
          (6) The recommendations of the Secretary as to 
        whether Congress should authorize a multiyear 
        procurement contract for those aircraft.
    This section would also require the Secretary to submit the 
certifications required by section 2306b of title 10, United 
States Code, if the Secretary recommends that Congress 
authorize a multiyear procurement contract for F/A-18 aircraft. 
Additionally, this section would authorize the Secretary to 
obligate up to $100.0 million of the amount authorized for 
procurement of F/A-18E/F or EA-18G aircraft for cost reduction 
initiatives in fiscal year 2009, subject to the availability of 
appropriations.

                     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 demonstrates 
such action is prudent in meeting strategic airlift 
requirements and does not significantly increase overall costs 
above those already planned. 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 concludes that 
retiring C-5A aircraft and procuring C-17 aircraft is more 
prudent in meeting strategic airlift mobility requirements than 
performing the Avionics Modernization and the Reliability 
Enhancement and Re-engining Programs on C-5A aircraft, and 
certify that operational risk will not increase in meeting the 
National Defense Strategy by retiring C-5A aircraft and 
procuring additional C-17 aircraft.

          Section 132--Maintenance of Retired KC-135E Aircraft

    This section would require the Air Force to maintain a 
minimum of 46 retired KC-135Es in Type-1000 storage.

Section 133--Repeal of Multi-Year Contract Authority for Procurement of 
                            Tanker Aircraft

    This section would repeal the multi-year procurement 
contract authority provided in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) 
during the KC-X tanker-lease program.

Section 134--Report on Processes Used for Requirements Development for 
                                  KC-X

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
December 1, 2008, that: examines the processes used to 
determine KC-X requirements; outlines why the KC-135R aircraft 
was established as the comparative baseline aircraft for KC-X; 
provides an evaluation of very large tanker aircraft as a 
potential Air Force aerial refueling platform; and, examines 
aerial refueling aircraft range, fuel offload at range and 
passenger/cargo carrying capabilities.

              Subtitle E--Joint and Multi-Service Matters


              Section 141--Body Armor Acquisition Strategy

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish an executive agent for individual body armor and 
associated components and establish a procurement budget line 
item for body armor and personnel protection enhancements.
    This section would also require the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to report to 
the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2009, 
detailing:
          (1) The U.S. body armor industrial base;
          (2) The strategic plan for sustaining the body armor 
        industrial base, to include critical component 
        suppliers; and
          (3) The objective body armor system level of 
        protection, weight, and manufacturing productivity and 
        the research and development path for achieving the 
        objective system.
    The committee is aware that none of the military services 
have programmed funds in the Future Year's Defense Plan for the 
fielding of the latest generation of body armor and the 
military services continue to rely on supplemental funding for 
long-term sustainment. The committee is concerned this lack of 
planning and programming is adversely impacting the capability 
of the body armor industrial base and could potentially impact 
the industrial base's ability to rapidly respond to new threats 
or requirements.

  Section 142--Small Arms Acquisition Strategy and Requirements Review

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States Government Accountability Office to audit the 
Department of Defense small arms requirements generation 
process and report to the congressional defense committees by 
October 1, 2009, on any statutory, regulatory, or procedural 
barriers that may affect the ability of the military services 
to rapidly field small arms.
    This section would also require the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees within 120 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act that details:
          (1) The current inventory, acquisition objective, 
        operational, and budgetary status of current small arms 
        programs to include pistols, carbines, rifles, light, 
        medium, and heavy machine guns;
          (2) A plan for a joint acquisition strategy for small 
        arms modernization with emphasis on a possible near-
        term competition for a new pistol and carbine;
          (3) Analysis of current small arms research and 
        development programs; and
          (4) An analysis of any ongoing small arms capability 
        gap assessments being pursued by the individual 
        military services.

 Section 143--Requirement for Common Ground Stations and Payloads for 
                  Manned and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a policy and acquisition strategy for manned and 
unmanned vehicle intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
payloads and ground stations, to be applicable through the 
Department of Defense, to achieve integrated research, 
development, test and evaluation, and procurement commonality.
    Payloads included within the policy and acquisition 
strategy, by vehicle class, would be: signals intelligence; 
electro-optical; synthetic aperture radar; ground moving target 
indicator; conventional explosive detection; foliage 
penetrating radar; laser designator; chemical, biological, 
radiological, nuclear, explosive detection; and national 
airspace operations avionics and sensors.
    This section would also seek: commonality of ground systems 
by vehicle class; common management of vehicle and payloads; 
ground station interoperability standardization; open source 
software code; acquisition of technical data rights in 
accordance with section 2320 of title 10, United States Code; 
and acquisition of vehicles, payloads, and ground stations 
through competitive procurement.
    Classes of vehicles for the purpose of this section are 
defined as:
          (1) Tier II class: vehicles such as Silver Fox and 
        Scan Eagle;
          (2) Tactical class: vehicles such as RQ-7;
          (3) Medium altitude class: vehicles such as MQ-1, MQ-
        1C, MQ-5, MQ-8, MQ-9, and Warrior Alpha; and
          (4) High Altitude class: vehicles such as RQ-4, RQ-
        4N, unmanned airship systems, Constant Hawk, Angel 
        Fire, Special Project Aircraft, Aerial Common Sensor, 
        EP-3, Scathe View, Compass Call, and Rivet Joint.
    Finally, this section would require a report be provided to 
the congressional defense committees, the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence within 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act on the policy and acquisition strategy 
established for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
payloads and ground station to achieve integrated research, 
development, test and evaluation, and procurement commonality 
for manned and unmanned systems.

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

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $79.6 billion for research, 
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). The committee 
recommends $79.7 billion, an increase of $109.5 million to the 
budget request.


            Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $10.5 billion for Army 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $10.7 billion, an increase of 
$159.6 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced lithium iron phosphate battery system for light tactical 
        vehicles

    The budget request contained $107.9 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but 
contained no funds for advanced lithium iron phosphate battery 
systems for combat hybrid high mobility multi-purpose wheeled 
vehicles (HMMWV).
    The committee understands that technology developed under a 
small business innovative research program uses advanced 
lithium iron phosphate battery systems for HMMWVs for 
demonstrations of ``silent watch'' missions. The committee 
notes this technology could provide a 5 to 10 times increase in 
capability over lead acid batteries that the military services 
currently use.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63005A for the advancement and demonstration of a lithium iron 
phosphate battery system for use on a combat hybrid HMMWV 
platform.

Antiballistic windshield armor

    The budget request contained $107.9 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but 
contained no funds for antiballistic windshield armor (AWA) 
prototype demonstrations.
    The AWA is a bolt-on device for tactical wheeled vehicles 
and is based on an oversized periscope concept using an upper 
and lower set of stainless mirrors backed by armor. The 
committee understands significant work is being performed to 
accelerate the development of the AWA design that could 
potentially provide improved blast protection and improved 
visibility for the warfighter during and following an enemy 
attack.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63005A for the continued development and future demonstration 
of AWA prototypes.

Army intelligent agent software programs

    The budget request contained $3.4 million in PE 63006A for 
Vertical Integration of Space Technology Applications (VISTA). 
VISTA is an Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) 
sponsored program designed to use ``intelligent agent'' 
software to manage and distribute space-based capabilities to 
Army users operating at multiple echelons. The committee is 
aware of another SMDC program, Joint Awareness Warfighter-Space 
(JAWS), which is being developed to address many of the same 
operational needs that are used to justify the VISTA project. 
The committee is further aware that an operational prototype of 
JAWS is scheduled to be delivered to the Army Battle Lab for 
testing in January 2009, following three years of development.
    The committee notes an opportunity to leverage these two 
efforts. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of 
Defense to examine the feasibility of merging the VISTA and 
JAWS projects to make optimal use of the Department's 
investment. The Secretary shall submit a report describing the 
results of this examination to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2009.

Army missile modernization

    The budget request contained $1.5 million in PE 23802A for 
Army missile product improvement research and development.
    The committee notes with concern that the Army's fiscal 
year 2009 budget contains funds for neither upgrades to the 
Javelin and the ground launched version of the tube-launched, 
optically-tracked, wire-guided (TOW) missiles nor a development 
program for new missiles to replace the Javelin and TOW.
    Given the rapid pace of counter-missile technologies, the 
committee believes it is imperative that the Army begin a 
research and development effort to upgrade or replace Javelin 
and TOW to ensure the United States maintains its technical 
superiority in battlefield missile systems. The committee urges 
the Army, as it considers its fiscal year 2010 budget, to fund 
a new research and development effort to address the need to 
upgrade or replace the successful Javelin and ground-launched 
TOW missile families.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
23802A for the Army to begin a missile upgrade or replacement 
research and development program for the Javelin and TOW 
missiles.

Chemical mechanical self-destruct fuze

    The budget request contained $73.7 million in PE 63004A for 
weapons and munitions advanced technology, but contained no 
funds for chemical-mechanical self-destruct fuze 
demonstrations.
    The committee is aware a chemical-mechanical self-destruct 
fuze device is currently under development and has progressed 
through an initial proof-of-principle ballistic test with 
positive results. The committee understands this technology 
could decrease the rate of unexploded ordnance on the 
battlefield.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
63004A to support demonstration and qualification testing of a 
chemical-mechanical self-destruct fuze.

Common Missile Warning System

    The committee is encouraged by the Army's fielding of the 
Common Missile Warning System, but remains concerned with the 
delay the Army is experiencing in the fielding of infra-red 
countermeasures (IRCM) laser-based systems on rotary aircraft. 
The Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures (ATIRCM) system 
has been in development since the mid-1990s. The committee 
understands that the Department of Defense has fielded other 
laser-based countermeasures and is considering additional 
developing technologies that will significantly reduce the size 
and weight of this capability when compared to current systems. 
Given the delays in the fielding of ATIRCM, the committee 
believes that the Department of the Army should take immediate 
steps to accelerate the fielding of laser-based countermeasures 
for the protection of Army rotary aircraft in theater.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the congressional defense committees, a report on laser-based 
countermeasures across the Department of Defense. This report 
shall be submitted within 60 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act and shall include the Army's plan to consider 
technologies other than the ATIRCM system to provide a 
functional laser-based IRCM for both fixed- and rotary-wing 
platforms.

Condition-based maintenance

    The committee recognizes the efforts underway to integrate 
condition-based maintenance (CBM) in the Department of the 
Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles and other Army 
platforms. The CBM development program within FCS seeks to 
provide diagnostic and prognostic capabilities aimed at 
performing maintenance based on the actual condition of a 
component or system versus predetermined, time-phased 
maintenance. The committee understands that the Department of 
the Army may be pursuing development of similar CBM software 
programs for Army vehicles outside the work being conducted 
within the FCS program. The committee directs the Secretary of 
the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 15, 2009, detailing all current and planned 
CBM software projects to include the cost of each project, 
expected maintenance cost savings, and requirements.

Data links aerial systems

    The committee recognizes that a new radio software 
waveform, the high-band networking waveform (HNW), is intended 
to be the backbone line-of-sight communications data link for 
the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) and Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) programs. HNW is being specifically 
designed to enable internet protocol net-centric operations, 
create a multi-point to multi-point network, and provide other 
advantages not previously available with the common data link 
(CDL) waveform, including the ability for radios to 
automatically establish communications with one another and 
form a robust network without operator intervention.
    The committee is also aware that the Army is in the process 
of obtaining full government purpose rights for use of the HNW 
for the federal government. Once those rights are secured, the 
HNW would be available for use by all military services and 
maintained in Department of Defense libraries to ensure that 
future revisions or changes will be interoperable.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide 
a report to the congressional defense committees within 60 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act detailing its 
legislative requirements (related to required communications 
data links for aerial systems), for the transmission and 
reception of communications, intelligence, surveillance, 
reconnaissance data and other data, in support of service-
unique and joint operations. The committee expects that the 
report will include joint service requirements as well as 
conclusions of previous related studies, including the WIN-T 
line-of-sight backbone study, the Navy joint-CDL working group 
report, and the Army's FCS network data link study.

Dynamometer facility upgrade program

    The budget request contained $107.9 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but 
contained no funds for the Dynamometer facility upgrade 
program.
    The committee recognizes current dynamometers used by the 
Army for combat and tactical vehicle powertrain assessments 
lack modern technology upgrades. The committee understands 
improved dynamometers could improve the Army's ability to 
rapidly assess and evaluate conventional and hybrid electric 
powertrains and their associated components. The committee 
believes this capability could provide improved knowledge 
regarding powertrain subsystem reliability, durability, and 
safety, as well as help identify any potential power train 
problems at the earliest stage of development.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million, in PE 
63005A for the Dynamometer facility upgrade program.

Enhanced holographic imager

    The budget request contained $7.7 million in PE 63734A for 
military engineering advanced technology, but contained no 
funds for the final phase of development for the enhanced 
holographic imager.
    The holographic imager system is used to produce three-
dimensional imagery for the Army's tactical battlefield 
visualization program. The committee notes that digital 
holographic images have proven to be an extremely useful 
capability for deployed Army and Special Operations Command 
warfighters. The committee further notes that over 1,700 
holographic images were provided to soldiers in theater in 
calendar year 2007. Planned efforts for the final phase will be 
to develop a field-deployable imager and to improve the process 
to produce holograms three times faster than the current 
system.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 
63734A to complete the development of the enhanced holographic 
imager.

Future Combat Systems

    The budget request contained $3.6 billion for the Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) program.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the 
committee expressed its concern with the schedule delays, cost 
growth, and reduced scope of the FCS program since its 
inception in fiscal year 2003. The committee also notes that 
the Army's growing need for funding to achieve its many other 
priorities, including completion of modular unit conversions, 
growth in the size of the Army, reset of equipment used in 
combat, improving the capability of the Army National Guard and 
Army Reserve, and modernization of current Army equipment would 
eventually require the realignment of the FCS program to a more 
affordable and deliberate schedule. Over the past year, the 
committee's concerns have only grown more acute as additional 
information on the cost of achieving the Army's numerous major 
initiatives came into more specific relief and the FCS program 
continued to struggle with developing critical technology 
elements.
    The committee continues to be concerned with specific 
aspects of the FCS program and its relationship to the Army's 
overall future needs. One element of concern includes the 
simultaneous development of the FCS communications network and 
FCS vehicles. It is the committee's understanding that FCS 
manned ground vehicles will depend upon a robust, pervasive, 
and high-performance communications network for much of their 
survivability. In addition, the committee understands that some 
progress on development of the network has been made during the 
system development and demonstration phase. However, given the 
current lack of clear requirements, mature technology, and 
progress on vital complementary programs necessary to develop 
the network on schedule, the committee notes that there is 
significant risk that delays in achieving the FCS network could 
lead to fielding of FCS manned ground vehicles without the FCS 
network support the Army considers essential to achieve FCS 
vehicle survivability requirements.
    A second area of concern is the current misalignment of FCS 
program testing events, knowledge points, and major program 
decisions. In its 2007 and 2008 reports on the FCS program, the 
Government Accountability Office noted that most major program 
and funding decisions occur before significant program test 
events intended to demonstrate progress on individual FCS 
program technologies and the ambitious FCS system of systems 
integration goals. One example is the program's current plan to 
request more than $1.2 billion in procurement funding in the 
fiscal year 2011 budget more than two years prior to the first 
significant FCS network demonstration in late 2012. The Army 
also intends to request $2.9 billion in FCS procurement funding 
in fiscal year 2012, which Congress would have to approve 
almost two years before the FCS milestone C low-rate initial 
production decision in fiscal year 2013. In addition, the 
committee notes that even some near-term elements of the FCS 
program, including the Non-Line of Sight Launch System, are 
scheduled for milestone C decisions on beginning low-rate 
initial production prior to completion of major testing events 
and required certifications. The committee believes that such 
contradictions of long-standing Department of Defense (DOD) 
procurement policies, including the concept of ``fly before you 
buy,'' may lead to significant program delays and cost 
increases as additional development work occurs late in the 
program.
    Overall, while the committee understands that the FCS 
program is an unprecedented development effort seeking to 
integrate 14 distinct elements, an entirely new battle command 
software system, and a complex wireless battlefield network, 
the committee does not believe that such an unusual and 
ambitious program structure obviates the need for the Army to 
follow established DOD acquisition policies. While some 
selected Army force protection programs have been permitted to 
bypass standard acquisition policies due to urgent combat 
needs, the committee does not believe that the FCS program 
meets that criteria, primarily due to its long delivery 
timelines for its major elements and the immaturity of many 
critical FCS technologies despite six years of system 
development and demonstration activities and an expenditure of 
$15.0 billion in development funding. However, should elements 
of the FCS program be deemed appropriate to fill theater 
operational needs, the committee would support fielding of 
selected FCS elements using rapid equipping or other expedited 
procurement procedures outside the FCS program.

Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles

    The budget request contained $774.3 million in PE 64660A 
for research and development of Future Combat Systems (FCS) 
manned ground vehicles.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for 2008, the committee 
noted its concern with the simultaneous nature of the 
development of FCS manned ground vehicles and the FCS 
communications network upon which the manned ground vehicles 
depend on to meet key survivability requirements. The committee 
notes that recent analysis by the Government Accountability 
Office points to likely delays to the FCS communications 
network development and continuing challenges with critical 
vehicle technology elements, including vehicle armor. In 
addition, the committee is concerned that the current program 
schedule will not provide Department of Defense and Army 
officials with adequate information at critical decision points 
related to FCS manned ground vehicles about the performance of 
the communications network. Absent such information, the 
committee remains concerned that the FCS vehicle designs could 
be based upon assumptions concerning the communications network 
that prove inaccurate, requiring significant vehicle design 
changes.
    The committee recommends $673.3 million, a decrease of 
$101.0 million, in PE 64660A for FCS manned ground vehicle 
research and development. Within the amount provided, the 
committee expects the Army to prioritize common vehicle chassis 
work necessary to field the Non-Line of Sight Cannon.

Future Combat Systems modular brigade enhancement

    The budget request contained $64.9 million in PE 64666A for 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) modular brigade enhancement 
research and development.
    The committee notes that this program element is the 
primary source of funds for activities of the Army Evaluation 
Task Force (AETF), a unit tasked with evaluation and 
development of near-term FCS program equipment, including FCS 
spin out 1 equipment, the small unmanned aerial vehicle, and 
small unmanned ground vehicle. The committee is concerned that 
requested funding in fiscal year 2009 is not sufficient to 
accommodate the evaluation and test activities necessary to 
meet the spin out 1 fielding timeline.
    The committee recommends $74.9 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 64666A for FCS modular brigade enhancement 
and AETF activities.

Future Combat Systems system of systems engineering and program 
        management

    The budget request contained $1.4 billion in PE 64661A for 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) system of systems engineering and 
program management.
    The committee notes that this program element includes the 
management reserve for the FCS program, which has been 
approximately seven percent of total program funding during the 
past two program years. In addition, the committee notes that 
this program element includes the contractor fees for the FCS 
program, which are calculated on a fixed formula based upon 
total contractor funding in the FCS program. The committee 
further notes that both of these elements can be adjusted based 
on funding adjustments to other elements of the FCS program 
recommended by the committee.
    The committee recommends $1.3 billion, a decrease of $132.0 
million, in PE 64661A for FCS system of systems engineering and 
program management.

Future Combat Systems unmanned aerial vehicles

    The budget request contained $34.4 million for Future 
Combat Systems (FCS) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
    The committee notes that of the total $34.4 million 
requested for FCS unmanned aerial vehicles, only $14.3 million 
was requested for the FCS class I UAV, representing just four-
tenths of one percent of total requested FCS funding. The 
committee notes that the Micro Air Vehicle, an early precursor 
to the FCS class I UAV, is already in use in Iraq by Navy 
explosive ordnance disposal teams, but that the FCS program's 
current schedule will not deliver a full-capability prototype 
class I UAV until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011. The 
committee supports additional funding for the FCS class I UAV 
in order to accelerate its readiness for fielding in an FCS 
spin out or directly to theater based on operational needs.
    The committee recommends $49.4 million, an increase of 
$15.0 million, in PE 64662A for development of FCS unmanned 
aerial vehicles, in order to support accelerated development of 
the FCS class I UAV.

Future Combat Systems unmanned ground vehicles

    The budget request contained $96.9 million in PE 64663A for 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) unmanned ground vehicles.
    The committee notes that of the total $96.9 million 
requested for FCS unmanned ground vehicle development, only 
$8.2 million was requested for the FCS small unmanned ground 
vehicle (SUGV), representing just two-tenths of one percent of 
total FCS requested funding. The SUGV is an FCS element based 
on the PackBot robot system in use in Iraq and Afghanistan 
today. The committee supports additional funding for the FCS 
SUGV in order to accelerate its readiness for fielding in an 
FCS spin out or directly to theater based on operational needs.
    The committee recommends $104.9 million, an increase of 
$8.0 million, in PE 64663A for FCS unmanned ground vehicles, in 
order to support accelerated development of the FCS SUGV.

Glass ceramic armor technology for vehicle survivability

    The budget request contained $55.2 million in PE 62601A for 
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but contained no 
funds to develop transparent ceramic armor through Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).
    The committee is aware that current transparent armor 
systems used on tactical and combat vehicles for protection 
against large improvised explosive devices and explosively 
formed penetrators are extremely heavy and impact vehicles' 
performance as well as decrease vehicles' life cycles. The 
committee notes that improvements in weight reduction without 
sacrificing survivability could benefit vehicle platforms that 
require improvements with balancing critical key performance 
parameters of payload, protection, and performance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
62601A for the advancement of glass ceramic armor technology 
for vehicle survivability.

Global Command and Control System-Army

    The budget request contained $12.9 million in PE 33150A for 
the Global Command and Control System-Army.
    The committee is concerned over a lack of commitment by the 
services to transition from service stove-piped command and 
control systems to a joint architecture, such as the Network 
Enabled Command and Control system. The services can no longer 
sustain a multitude of disparate systems, from a technical 
management or financial perspective. Yet there appears to be no 
clear strategy articulated to senior decision makers showing 
how the services will move from multiple independent systems, 
to a joint, federated approach. This approach does not 
necessarily entail adopting a single system, but until the 
services commit to a unified approach to commonality, the 
military services will continue to waste funds and inhibit the 
benefits accrued by jointness.
    The committee recommends $11.9 million, a decrease of $1.0 
million in PE 33150A.

Ground soldier systems concept development

    The budget request contained $36.6 million in PE 63827A for 
soldier systems advanced development of which $25.5 million is 
for the ground soldier system, a ``new start'' development 
program.
    The committee is concerned that the Army is proposing a 
``new start'' system development and demonstration program for 
a soldier ensemble despite the service's limited resources and 
the success of the Land Warrior (LW) system. The committee is 
aware that LW has been deployed in response to urgent 
operational needs statements from units in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom (OIF) and has proven to increase combat capability of 
the individual soldier, as well as the efficiency of small 
units. The operational use of LW in OIF has yielded soldier-
driven improvements, primarily in weight reduction and has 
increased LW's demand by deployed and ``next-to-deploy'' units. 
The committee notes the Army has requested $102.0 million in 
the amended fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing 
military operations to provide LW systems for the next-to-
deploy Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The committee believes the 
proposed level of funding for a new start ground soldier system 
program is not justified. The committee believes that 
additional resources should be allocated to the LW program in 
current and future budget requests and encourages the Army to 
continue to leverage and apply lessons learned from LW systems 
for next-generation soldier systems.
    The committee recommends $16.6 million, a decrease of $20.0 
million, in PE 63827A for the ground soldier system development 
program and realigns this funding to Other Procurement, Army 
budget activities to procure additional LW systems in response 
to urgent operational needs statements.

Heavy duty hybrid electric vehicle demonstration

    The budget request contained $107.9 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but 
contained no funds for the demonstration of low-emission and 
fuel-efficient hybrid electric engine propulsion systems for 
heavy tactical wheeled vehicles.
    The committee understands low emission and fuel efficient 
hybrid electric engine propulsion systems could be used to 
develop and demonstrate next generation hybrid electric 
powertrains on up to five heavy tactical wheeled vehicles. The 
committee notes these powertrains could operate on bio-diesel 
and could also demonstrate auxiliary power capability. The 
committee is aware that prior year funds have been appropriated 
for an Air Force first-generation hybrid electric heavy 
tactical wheeled vehicle program and the committee expects the 
Army to leverage results from the Air Force program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63005A for the continued refinement of system development and 
demonstration of a low emission and fuel efficient hybrid 
electric engine propulsion system for the Army's heavy tactical 
wheeled vehicle fleet.

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle bloc improvements

    The budget request contained no funding in PE 64609A for 
light tactical vehicles to include the high mobility multi-
purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) bloc improvement program.
    The HMMWV bloc improvement program could provide the Army 
with the ability to conduct assessments of technologies to 
better meet requirements and to react to evolving threats in 
combat theaters of operation. The committee understands this 
program could support readily available product improvements in 
payload, power, protection, range, and reliability. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to provide the 
necessary resources to continue to develop and insert critical 
technology product improvements into the HMMWV fleet.

Integrated fire control system for small arms

    The budget request contained $8.8 million in PE 63607A for 
the joint service small arms program, but contained no funds 
for an integrated fire control system for small arms.
    The committee understands the joint service small arms 
capability assessment defined a list of 14 desired capabilities 
for existing small arms platforms in the relevant technology 
areas of technical fire control, tactical fire control in the 
small unit, and new concepts and applications. The committee 
recognizes an integrated fire control system could address 1 of 
these 14 desired capabilities and would enhance the 
warfighter's real-time cognition and decision-making ability 
especially in urban, counter-insurgent, and non-linear combat 
environments.
    The committee recommends $10.3 million, an increase of $1.5 
million, in PE 63607A, to further the development of an 
integrated fire control system for existing small arms 
platforms.

Joint Cargo Aircraft program

    The Army budget request contained $267.2 million for 
procurement of seven Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA).
    The committee understands the Army plans to procure JCA to 
replace its C-23 and CH-47 fleets of aircraft that support the 
Army's intra-theater time-sensitive cargo mission. The JCA 
sustainment strategy was completed in February 2007, but many 
details, such as core depot maintenance capabilities, 
distribution of depot maintenance funds between contractor 
logistics support and organic performance, and determination of 
public and private partnering will not be finalized until low-
rate initial production.
    The committee notes that the Secretary of the Army plans to 
fund procurement of initial spares, support equipment, training 
simulators, post-production modifications, and system 
engineering and management items through the Operations and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) appropriation account. The committee is 
concerned by this approach because Congress has less oversight 
and more difficulty tracking obligations and expenditures for 
these items, and notes that these items are traditionally 
procured through research and development, or procurement 
appropriation accounts. Of further concern, the committee notes 
that the April 17, 2008, Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) acquisition 
program baseline documentation states that ``operations and 
maintenance costs are not tracked and are not breachable.''
    The committee includes a provision, section 216, in title 
II of this Act that would prohibit the Secretary of the Army 
from funding initial spares, support equipment, training 
simulators, post-production modifications, and system 
engineering and management items through the O&M appropriations 
account.

Landmine Warfare/Barrier--system development and demonstration

    The budget request contained $126.5 million in PE 64808A 
for Landmine Warfare/Barrier system development and 
demonstration.
    The committee notes that $74.0 million of this amount is 
for continuing work on the Intelligent Munitions System (IMS), 
a system that the Army decided to remove from the Future Combat 
Systems (FCS) program, creating a reduced demand for the IMS 
system. The committee further notes that $52.5 million of the 
request is for the Ground Standoff Mine Detection System and 
the Airborne Surveillance, Target, Acquisition, and Minefield 
Detection System, two programs that are developing sensors for 
FCS platforms that will not be deployed until 2014. The 
committee is concerned that these sensor programs are not 
properly aligned with the development timelines of the FCS 
systems that will use them.
    The committee recommends $64.3 million, a decrease of $62.2 
million, in PE 64808A for Landmine Warfare/Barrier.

Multi-threat explosive detection initiative

    The budget request contained $25.6 million in PE 62709A for 
night vision technology, but contained no funds for eye-safe 
standoff detection of multiple threat explosives technology.
    The committee notes the continued need to accomplish 
standoff detection of multiple threat explosive devices, even 
at trace amounts.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62709A for the eye-safe standoff multiple threat explosive 
detection initiative.

Near-net shaped direct-sinistered silicon carbide torso plate 
        technology

    The budget request contained $30.7 million in PE 63747A for 
soldier support and survivability, but contained no funds for 
the expansion of near-net shaped direct-sinistered silicon 
carbide torso plate technology.
    The committee understands near-net shaped direct-sinistered 
silicon carbide torso plate technology could expand alternate 
methods for manufacturing critical ceramic components used for 
vehicle and personnel protection programs. The committee notes 
these methods could provide for significant advances in life 
cycle costs, performance, and weight reduction.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63747A to evaluate near-net shaped direct-sinistered silicon 
carbide torso plate technology.

Platform soldier mission readiness system for tactical wheeled vehicles

    The committee understands platform soldier mission 
readiness systems (PSMRS) is the central condition-based 
maintenance software solution for the Army's Future Combat 
Systems (FCS). Condition-based maintenance provides diagnostic 
and prognostic capabilities aimed at performing maintenance 
based on the actual condition of a component or system versus 
predetermined time-phased maintenance. The committee 
understands that PSMRS software could be spiraled from FCS into 
the tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fleet that would potentially 
achieve a 30 percent reduction in annual maintenance costs. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to develop a 
plan that would utilize a PSMRS program as part of the TWV 
fleet modernization effort. The committee understands this 
program could be implemented at the Army's Center of Industrial 
and Technical Excellence for Ground Combat and Tactical 
Systems.

Polymer matrix composites for rotorcraft drive systems

    The budget request contained $57.3 million in PE 63003A for 
aviation advanced technology, but contained no funds for the 
demonstration of structural composite rotorcraft drive system 
components.
    The committee notes the opportunity to reduce costs of 
production, operations, and support of rotorcraft through the 
use of polymer matrix composite (PMC) technologies for major 
components such as rotorcraft drive system components.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63003A to demonstrate full-scale design, fabrication, and 
testing of PMC rotorcraft drive systems.

RAND Arroyo Center

    The budget request contained $16.3 million in PE 65103A for 
the RAND Arroyo Center.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the 
committee expressed its concern about reductions in the Army's 
budget request for the RAND Arroyo Center, which is one of the 
Army's primary federally funded research and development 
centers. The committee notes with concern that funding 
requested for fiscal year 2009 remained at the same level as 
fiscal year 2008. The committee continues to support stable 
funding for the RAND Arroyo Center and encourages the Army in 
its fiscal year 2010 budget submission to increase funding for 
this activity.
    The committee recommends $19.3 million, an increase of $3.0 
million, in PE 65103A for the RAND Arroyo Center.

Stryker family of vehicles research and development

    The budget request contained $108.0 million in PE 63653A 
for research and development of upgrades to the Stryker family 
of vehicles.
    The committee notes that, subsequent to the submission of 
the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the Army comptroller 
requested the committee move $38.7 million from Stryker program 
procurement to Stryker research and development to ensure full 
funding for the Stryker product improvement program (PIP). 
However, this request assumed committee approval of a fiscal 
year 2008 reprogramming that would have reduced Stryker 
research and development by $33.0 million. Because this 
reprogramming was not approved, only $5.7 million in additional 
funds for Stryker research and development are needed in fiscal 
year 2009 to fully fund the Stryker PIP.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.7 million in PE 
63653A for Stryker vehicle research and development.

Torque-vectoring rollover prevention technology

    The budget request contained $55.2 million in PE 62601A for 
combat vehicle and automotive technology, but contained no 
funds for torque-vectoring rollover prevention technology.
    The committee understands torque-vectoring allows active 
control of wheel speed ratio and torque distribution, typically 
through the application of multi-plate wet clutches coupled 
with advanced gear-train technology. The committee is aware 
domestic torque-vectoring technology could increase stability 
and performance in lightweight tactical wheeled vehicles.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.4 million in PE 
62601A for the development of torque-vectoring rollover 
prevention technology in light tactical wheeled vehicles.

Warfighter Information Network--Tactical, increment 3, program

    The budget request contained $414.4 million in PE 63782A 
for Warfighter Information Network--Tactical (WIN-T) research 
and development.
    The committee notes that Increment 3 of the WIN-T program 
has not had an updated acquisition program baseline for more 
than two years. As a result, the committee is concerned that 
the $330.5 million in this program element for WIN-T Increment 
3 is not based on a thorough understanding of program funding 
needs. In addition, the committee remains concerned that the 
WIN-T Increment 3 program has yet to complete the independent 
cost estimate or technology development validation required by 
the June 2007 Nunn-McCurdy program recertification.
    The committee recommends $381.3 million, a decrease of 
$33.1 million, in PE 63782A for WIN-T research and development. 
The committee expects the Army to fully fund WIN-T Increment 2 
funding requested in this program element.

Weapon shot counter technology

    The committee is aware that weapon shot counter technology 
for small arms weapons has been developed and tested by the 
Naval Surface Warfare Center and is being fielded by the United 
States Special Operations Command on the M4 carbine, MK11, and 
MK 12 sniper rifles. Rounds fired data allows weapons to be 
maintained at a high level of readiness with use-based 
technology rather than the antiquated calendar based 
maintenance. The committee notes preventive and predictive 
maintenance allows high wear parts such as barrels and bolts to 
be replaced prior to catastrophic failure and eliminates 
unnecessary weapon rebuilds and replacements. The committee 
strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to evaluate the 
viability of fielding this technology for small arms weapons.

Wearable personal area network technology

    The budget request contained $21.9 million in PE 62786A for 
warfighter technology, but contained no funds for wearable 
personal area network technology.
    The committee understands wearable personal area network 
technology would develop clothing that could integrate 
electrical power distribution, data transmission, and 
communication networks to provide military personnel with the 
capability to operate and control a suite of miniature, 
personal communication systems. The committee notes this 
technology could provide critical weight reduction to the 
combat carrying load of the individual warfighter and improve 
combat effectiveness.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62786A for wearable personal area network technology.

            Navy Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $19.3 billion for Navy 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $19.8 billion, an increase of 
$432.5 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


Advanced anti-radiation guided-missile weapon data link program

    The budget request contained $60.4 million in PE 63114N for 
power projection advanced technology programs, but contained no 
funds for a flight demonstration of the advanced anti-radiation 
guided-missile (AARGM) weapon data link program.
    The AARGM is a medium-range, supersonic, air-launched 
tactical missile designed to attack enemy radars. The AARGM 
weapon data link program demonstrates an ability to use a new 
data link program, developed by the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, to replace the two data links currently used 
on the AARGM with one data link that also provides an expanded 
capability against moving targets while reducing data link 
costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 
63114N for the AARGM weapon data link flight demonstration. 
Subsequent to a successful flight demonstration, the committee 
expects the Department of the Navy to incorporate the AARGM 
weapon data link as part of its AARGM product improvement 
program.

Advanced electric motor development

    The budget request contained a total of $256.5 million in 
PE 63513N, PE 64307N, and PE 63123N for advanced shipboard 
component development programs.
    The committee strongly supports the Navy's research and 
technology efforts to design and develop the next generation of 
advanced electric motors. The committee understands that 
promising technologies exist in high temperature 
superconducting motors, permanent magnet motors, and direct 
current (DC) homopolar motors. The committee is committed to 
the concept of the all-electric integrated propulsion and 
distribution systems for future classes of naval vessels and 
recognizes that adequate funding for the testing of multiple 
promising technologies is in the best interest of the future 
naval force.
    The committee recommends increases of $4.0 million in PE 
63513N, $3.0 million in PE 64307N, and $4.0 million in PE 
63123N for continued design, development, and testing of high 
temperature superconducting, permanent magnet, and DC homopolar 
advanced electric motors.

Affordable weapon system

    The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 63795N for 
land attack technology, but contained no funds for the 
affordable weapon system (AWS) project.
    The committee understands that AWS is an advanced 
technology initiative intended to identify and mature 
capabilities that should lead to a precision guided weapon 
capable of kinetically engaging targets at stand-off ranges 
with a fly-away cost goal of less than $0.3 million per weapon. 
The committee notes the development of an affordable strike 
weapon against moving and urban targets has been identified by 
the Department of the Navy as a warfighting science and 
technology gap.
    The committee notes the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile 
(TLAM), Block IV is an example of an increasingly expensive 
strike weapon. The committee notes the Navy signed a five year, 
multi-year procurement contract in fiscal year 2004 for 2,200 
TLAM Block IV missiles at a unit cost of $0.7 million per 
missile. The committee notes for fiscal year 2009, the 
Department of the Navy will not procure TLAM Block IV missiles 
using multi-year procurement contract authority but will use 
annual procurement contract authority. The committee is 
concerned by the Navy's approach to Tomahawk Block IV missile 
procurement and notes that the Navy plans to obligate $281.1 
million for procurement of 207 missiles, resulting in a unit 
cost of $1.4 million per missile. The committee notes this is 
an 86 percent unit cost increase of $0.6 million per missile in 
fiscal year 2009, as compared to the unit cost of a missile 
procured under the previous multi-year procurement contract 
authority.
    The committee commends the Naval Air Systems Command's 
decision to restructure the AWS project into 2, 12-month phases 
that, with the proper funding, allow the Navy to evaluate a 
broad scope of innovative industrial base ideas that could 
potentially meet the Department's requirements for an 
affordable weapon. The committee understands the results of the 
two-phased approach should support the development of an 
initial capabilities document, which may lead to a new start 
program for AWS beginning in fiscal year 2010, with a goal of 
first article delivery in fiscal year 2016. The committee notes 
that AWS phase two, scheduled to begin in September, 2008, 
would evaluate material approaches, further refine concept of 
operations and system architecture, and construct a 
comprehensive risk assessment of material solutions provided by 
industry.
    However, the committee is concerned that the current budget 
request and prior year appropriations for AWS would only allow 
two concepts to be carried forward into phase two, instead of 
continuing to develop each concept found to have merit. The 
committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the Navy to 
maximize industry participation for the AWS project and 
understands that awarding more than two phase-two contracts 
would provide the Secretary additional system concepts and 
options to consider for AWS.
    The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 
63795N for AWS. Additionally, the committee strongly encourages 
the Secretary of the Navy to examine more cost-effective 
alternative courses of action concerning the procurement of the 
TLAM Block IV.

All-weather sense-and-avoid system for unmanned aerial vehicles

    The budget request contained $77.1 million in PE 62235N for 
common picture applied research, but contained no funds for 
continued development of the all-weather sense-and-avoid system 
for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
    The committee notes that UAVs operate in the national 
airspace, crowded theaters of operation, and in hazardous 
weather. Currently, UAVs lack adequate collision avoidance 
systems. The committee further notes that $2.4 million was 
appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 2008, and understands 
that additional funding in fiscal year 2009 would complete the 
development, prototype fabrication, and laboratory testing of 
the all-weather sense-and-avoid system for UAVs in a ground-
based vehicle.
    The committee recommends $81.6 million, an increase of $2.5 
million, in PE 62235N for continued development of the all-
weather sense-and-avoid system for UAVs.

Composite Sea Lion craft project

    The budget request contained $131.3 million in PE 62123N 
for force protection applied research but contained no funds 
for the manufacture of a composite craft based on the aluminum 
Sea Lion craft developed by the Naval Surface Warfare Center 
for use in the special operations forces.
    The committee understands that the manufacture of a 
composite craft based on the Sea Lion hull design will allow 
the Navy to determine which type of craft, aluminum or 
composite, best serves the needs of the special operations 
forces and the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
62123N for the manufacture of a composite craft using the Sea 
Lion hull form.

Extended range guided-munition

    The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 63795N for 
land attack technology.
    The committee notes that $38.8 million of the funding 
requested in this program element was for the extended range 
guided munition (ERGM) program. However, this program is under 
a stop work order by the Navy pending a possible program 
cancellation by the Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics. The committee further notes that as 
of early April 2008, only 15 percent of $51.1 million in fiscal 
year 2008 program funds were obligated due to the delay in the 
program.
    The committee believes the Navy has justifiable concerns 
regarding the performance of ERGM, especially after expending 
over $600.0 million for research and development. Nevertheless, 
the Marine Corps still requires long-range precision fire 
support. The committee is concerned that the Navy is no closer 
to fulfilling the naval surface fire support requirement than 
it was at the inception of the ERGM program. However, Congress 
has previously supported significant funding to develop 
alternatives, such as the ballistic-trajectory extended range 
munition (B-TERM), that may prove to be promising approaches to 
addressing the requirement. The committee directs the Secretary 
of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees within 90 days from the date of enactment of this 
Act containing an assessment of appropriate alternatives, an 
estimate of necessary resources, and a suitable program 
schedule to field a capability to support the Marine Corps 
requirement for extended range munitions capability.
    The committee recommends $1.2 million, a decrease of $38.8 
million, in PE 63795N for land attack technology.

Global Command and Control System--Maritime

    The budget request contained $128.7 million in PE 64231N 
for tactical command systems, including some funds for the 
Global Command and Control System--Maritime.
    The committee is concerned over a lack of commitment by the 
services to transition from service stove-piped command and 
control systems to a joint architecture, such as the Network 
Enabled Command and Control system. The services can no longer 
sustain a multitude of disparate systems, from a technical 
management or financial perspective. Yet there appears to be no 
clear strategy articulated to senior decision makers showing 
how the services will move from multiple independent systems, 
to a joint, federated approach. This approach does not 
necessarily entail adopting a single system, but until the 
services commit to a unified approach to commonality, the 
military services will continue to waste funds and inhibit the 
benefits accrued by jointness.
    The committee recommends $127.7 million, a decrease of $1.0 
million in PE 64231N.

Helicopter windscreen laminate appliques

    The budget request contained $122.9 million in PE 25633N 
for aviation improvements, but contained no funds for 
development of helicopter windscreen laminate appliques.
    The committee understands that helicopter windscreens are 
subject to erosive effects of environmental conditions, which 
can lead to significant degradation of visibility for the 
aircrew, especially during low visibility and night missions. 
The committee notes that a multi-layered protective laminate 
applique could be developed and applied to helicopter 
windscreens that would allow maintenance personnel to quickly 
restore windscreen visibility for the aircrew prior to flight 
by peeling away degraded layers, thus increasing success of 
mission operations and safety for the aircrew.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million in PE 
25633N for aviation improvements and development of helicopter 
windscreen laminate appliques.

High-Integrity Global Positioning Systems

    The budget request contained $61.2 million in PE 63235N for 
High-Integrity Global Positioning Systems (HIGPS).
    HIGPS is designed to develop the technology required to 
demonstrate the capability to use the existing Iridium 
satellite constellation to enhance current GPS navigation and 
timing capabilities. The benefits of this approach have not 
been sufficiently proven and the committee does not recommend 
funding for this request.
    The committee recommends no funds in PE 63235N for High-
Integrity Global Positioning Systems.

Hyper-spectral targeting sensor

    The budget request contained $60.4 million in PE 63114N for 
power projection advanced technology, but contained no funds to 
develop a hyper-spectral targeting sensor for unmanned aerial 
systems (UAS).
    The committee notes that tactical UASs are being developed 
by the Department to provide intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance during military operations. The committee 
understands that a capability shortfall exists for an advanced 
technology sensor package that can operate on UASs from medium-
to-long stand-off distances and at low-to moderate-grazing 
angles to mitigate exposure to defensive ground-fire and 
increase mission accomplishment. The committee also understands 
there is a requirement to collect and process specific 
wavelength-sensitive and high-quality image data, suitable for 
use with advanced algorithms that can yield actionable data in 
real time.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63114N for power projection advanced technology for development 
of a hyper-spectral targeting sensor for UASs.

Large-scale demonstration item for VA-Class bow dome

    The budget request contained $167.4 million in PE 64558N 
for new design SSN, but contained no funds for development of a 
large-scale Virginia class submarine bow dome utilizing 
composite manufacturing technology.
    The committee understands that certifying a composite 
process to manufacture bow domes for Virginia Class submarines 
has potential benefits of reduced cost and an expanded supply 
base compared to the current process of manufacturing 
rubberized bow domes with an auto-clave process.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
64558N for the manufacture of a large scale composite bow dome 
as a proof of concept demonstration model.

Marine Corps assault vehicles

    The budget request contained $316.1 million in PE 63611M 
for expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV) research and 
development.
    The committee is concerned that plans to begin fabrication 
of new EFV prototypes in fiscal year 2009 have not sufficiently 
addressed the need to enhance protection of the EFV from mines 
and improvised explosive devices in some operational scenarios.
    The committee recommends $275.9 million, a decrease of 
$40.2 million, in PE 63611M for EFV research and development.

Marine Corps shotgun modernization program

    The budget request contained $136.1 million in PE 26623M 
for Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems, but 
contained no funds for the Marine Corps shotgun modernization 
program.
    The Marine Corps shotgun modernization program transitions 
LTLX-7000 technology into current M1014 combat shotgun 
platforms through a series of spiral developments. The 
committee understands LTLX-7000 technology uses a simple and 
robust sighting system, as well as a unique gas bleeding system 
to adjust the muzzle velocity of less than lethal (LTL) 
projectiles so that the LTL projectile hits desired targets at 
any range with the desired effect. The committee is aware that 
certain LTL projectiles can be lethal when fired at close 
range. The committee is aware LTLX-7000 technology could 
provide the user with flexibility to adjust muzzle velocity to 
address any situation and prevent unnecessary casualties.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
26623M to accelerate the Marine Corps shotgun modernization 
program.

Marine mammal awareness, alert and response systems

    The budget request contained $28.8 million in PE 63254N for 
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development but contained 
no funds for the marine mammal awareness, alert and response 
systems.
    The committee is concerned with both the need to protect 
marine mammals from adverse effects of mid-frequency sonar and 
the need for the Navy to train using mid-frequency sonar in a 
realistic environment. The committee understands that 
development of the marine mammal awareness, alert and response 
system would significantly increase the Navy's ability to 
monitor marine mammal activity in the vicinity of training 
exercises using mid-frequency sonar.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63254N for the development of the marine mammal awareness, 
alert and response system.

MK-48 torpedo technology development

    The budget request contained $15.9 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 a critical necessity to counter 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 can not satisfy future operating 
environment requirements, and that a high bandwidth post-launch 
communications system is needed to ensure the MK-48 TADCAP is 
capable of meeting requirements in the littoral environment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
25632N for development of a post-launch communication system 
for the MK-48 TADCAP.

Naval Ship Hydrodynamic Test Facilities, NSWC, Carderock

    The budget request contained $14.6 million in PE 63564N for 
ship preliminary design and feasibility studies but contained 
no funds to replace the wave makers at the Naval Ship 
Hydrodynamic Test Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC).
    The committee understands the wave makers at the NSWC are 
essential for assessing current and future naval ship designs. 
Also, the current wave makers are unable to produce consistent 
test waves and are in need of replacement.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63564N for the replacement of the wave makers at the Naval Ship 
Hydrodynamic Test Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Navy strategy for maritime domain awareness

    The committee applauds the Navy for working to accelerate 
the deployment of a capability for achieving maritime domain 
awareness (MDA), which is vital for homeland protection and the 
projection of naval power. The committee is concerned at the 
lack of a clearly articulated Navy strategy for achieving both 
the near-term capabilities and long-range vision laid out in 
the ``National Plan to Achieve Maritime Domain Awareness'' 
issued by the Department of Homeland Security, in October 2005.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit 
to the congressional defense committees a report on his 
strategy for continued development of MDA capability within 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act. This strategy 
shall address, at minimum, the following issues:
          (1) The definitions for spirals one and two 
        (including descriptions of the capabilities to be 
        delivered and the funding needed for these 
        capabilities) and how are they linked to the ``National 
        Plan to Achieve Maritime Domain Awareness;''
          (2) Capabilities planned for inclusion in future 
        spirals for MDA;
          (3) A certification that current and future spirals 
        will integrate into the enterprise Naval Networking 
        Environment, as well as proposed future iterations;
          (4) An explanation of how technologies being 
        developed in the science and technology community spin 
        into future MDA spirals;
          (5) Supporting capabilities being provided by 
        international or interagency partners (including 
        funding levels), and a description of how these 
        capabilities will be integrated into current and future 
        spirals; and
          (6) The governance structure for determining program 
        management oversight.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends the 
budget requested funding levels for the procurement and 
research and development programs necessary for development of 
MDA capability.

Non-lethal weapons and technology

    The committee notes the increasing potential in the 
emerging role of non-lethal weapons and the continued 
development of non-lethal weapons technologies and 
capabilities. The committee believes that the use of these 
technologies could prove valuable in reducing risks to the 
warfighter and to non-combatants in areas of ongoing military 
operations and in potential future missions of humanitarian 
support, stability, and reconstruction operations, or defense 
support to civil authorities. In this regard, the committee 
urges the Department to pursue a greater number of development 
and employment strategies for the ultimate fielding of such 
systems and encourages the continued efforts toward developing 
active denial technologies, including the Active Denial System 
(ADS), optical incapacitation, and acoustic devices.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense 
to ensure that the non-lethal weapons science and technology 
base is adequately funded so that investments in these 
technologies can lead expeditiously to the development and 
deployment of advanced non-lethal weapons systems and 
capabilities that enhance the safety of U.S. armed forces and 
improve opportunities for mission success. The committee also 
encourages the Department to ensure that policy, doctrine, and 
tactics are developed in parallel through increased 
experimentation, as those elements are necessary to promote 
technology maturation and to ensure the rapid fielding of non-
lethal systems.

Recapitalization of anti-submarine warfare aircraft

    The budget request contained $1.2 billion for development 
and procurement of three P-8 developmental test aircraft. The 
budget request contained $301.5 million for development and 
procurement of P-3C modernization and sustainment programs. The 
Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded requirements list contained 
$100.0 million for P-8 Multi-Mission Aircraft (MMA) to 
accelerate replacement of the P-3C aircraft by nine months, and 
$448.3 million for P-3C unplanned aircraft grounding-item 
repairs.
    The committee understands the Navy recently determined that 
the P-3C fleet is experiencing structural fatigue in wing 
struts at a rate greater than originally estimated. As a 
result, thirty nine of 123 mission capable P-3C aircraft 
evaluated were grounded in November 2007.
    The committee understands that with implementation of a 
structural fatigue recovery plan, there is sufficient service 
life remaining in the P-3C fleet to provide needed operational 
capability until the replacement P-8 MMA reaches initial 
operational capability status in fiscal year 2013, and full 
operational capability status in fiscal year 2019, when the 
last aircraft of the P-3C fleet will be retired.
    The committee notes the Secretary of the Navy is 
contemplating accelerating initial operational capability 
status of the P-8 MMA by approximately nine months. Due to the 
two most recent Navy assessments of the contractor's 
performance as suboptimal, the committee is concerned with 
program acceleration. The committee notes that program 
officials conducted a $900.0 million baseline restructuring of 
the program in January 2007, and reduced the planned 
procurement of seven test aircraft to five aircraft. Even with 
the reduction in planned test aircraft, the testing schedule 
has not been modified, adding additional risk to the program.
    Due to these concerns, the committee expects the Secretary 
of the Navy and the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics to review program execution prior to 
making a decision to accelerate P-8 MMA initial operational 
capability.
    The committee recommends $448.3 million in title XV of this 
Act for P-3C unplanned aircraft grounding-item repairs.

Reliable Replacement Warhead

    The budget request contained $80.1 million in PE 11221N, 
Strategic Submarine and Weapons Systems Support, including 
$23.3 million for the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead 
(RRW).
    According to the President's budget justification 
materials, these funds were requested to enable the Navy to 
support the RRW Phase 2a design and cost study, and to support 
RRW Phase 3 Engineering Development, in concert with the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. The committee finds 
that the activities described in the budget request are 
premature and not executable in fiscal year 2009. Subsequent to 
the release of the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense and the Navy described the 
requested funds as designed not to support the RRW program, but 
instead to support research on integrated Arming, Fuzing, and 
Firing (AF&F) systems that could be suitable with either an RRW 
or an existing weapon refurbished through a Life Extension 
Program. The committee understands that integrated AF&F designs 
with applicability across multiple platforms could yield 
important benefits.
    The committee recommends $74.5 million, a decrease of $5.6 
million, in PE 11221N for Strategic Submarine and Weapons 
Systems Support. Within this total for PE 11221N, the committee 
authorizes no funds for the RRW program. The committee 
authorizes $13.3 million within PE 11221N, Strategic Submarine 
and Weapons Systems Support, for research into integrated AF&F 
systems.

Report on energetic materials research development and manufacturing 
        technology

    The committee notes the recent reports on the advances in 
energetic materials research, development, and manufacturing 
technologies by foreign countries, and urges the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to conduct a risk assessment that would address 
national security threats arising from new and unanticipated 
energetic materials that may be developed by foreign 
governments. Additionally the committee is concerned that the 
investment required to adequately sustain a robust energetics 
research, development, and manufacturing technology program has 
not been maintained. The committee urges the Department to 
adequately invest in this area to ensure that the United States 
retains sufficient explosive production capacity, continues to 
develop future innovative munitions, and continues to develop 
the next-generation of energetics scientists and engineers. The 
committee believes a loss of this military-unique capability 
and crucial workforce would have significant ramifications for 
future weapons systems, military operations, and homeland 
security.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, the 
Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, to assess the current state of, and future 
advances in research, development, and manufacturing technology 
of energetic materials in both foreign countries and in the 
United States. At a minimum, the report shall include those DOD 
programmatic and budgetary recommendations that will ensure 
advanced energetic materials and equally critical energetic 
science and technology expertise are available to meet future 
national security requirements and should include the risk to 
national security if the funding level continues to decline.
    The committee recognizes the initial work done by the 
Department of the Navy in launching an energetics science and 
technology workforce revitalization initiative and encourages 
the Secretary of Defense to utilize that initiative as the 
basis for developing the report. The report shall be submitted 
to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2009.

Ruggedized helicopter avionics displays

    The budget request contained $112.5 million in PE 63236N 
for warfighter sustainment advanced technology, but contained 
no funds to continue the development of ruggedized avionics 
displays for Navy and Marine Corps helicopter systems.
    The committee understands that helicopter vibrations and 
adverse environmental flying conditions reduce the useful 
service-life of helicopter displays, which increases display 
failure rate, increases maintenance personnel workload, and has 
the potential to decrease safety margins of aircrews during 
critical phases of flight. The committee notes that funding was 
appropriated in fiscal year 2008 to develop ruggedized 
helicopter displays and instrumentation for avionics. 
Ruggedized display systems should have the capability to 
operate in harsh conditions without the use of air vents for 
cooling, and should offer better performance, longer service-
life, and reduced total life-cycle cost.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.8 million in PE 
63236N for continued development of ruggedized avionics 
displays for Navy and Marine Corps helicopter systems.

Sea-based strategic deterrent/undersea launched missile study

    The budget request contained $141.7 million in PE 63561N 
for advanced submarine system development but contained no 
funds for design and development of a sea-based strategic 
undersea launched missile.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has no coherent plan for undersea launched strategic deterrent 
weapons systems to eventually replace the current undersea 
strategic force. The committee believes that research and 
development is necessary now to ensure undersea launched 
weapons capability is available in the future.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63561N to begin initial studies and concept designs of future 
undersea launched weapons systems.

Seafighter

    The budget request contained $55.1 million for force 
protection advanced technology but contained no funds for 
continuing the upgrades to make the research and development 
vessel Seafighter as deployable fleet asset.
    The committee is committed to the continued use of 
Seafighter as both a research and development craft and a 
deployable Navy asset. The design and development of Seafighter 
benefited the Navy and Coast Guard in the design and 
construction the Littoral Combat Ships and the National 
Security Cutter. Seafighter is a vital asset for continued 
research and development testing of emerging technologies 
useful in the littoral warfare environment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63123N to include 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.

SSGN/Virginia payload tube development

    The budget request contained $141.7 million in PE 63561N 
for advanced submarine system design but contained no funds for 
continued design and development efforts of a large diameter 
weapons launch tube for Virginia class submarines.
    The committee understands that development of a large 
diameter launch tube for Virginia class submarines will 
increase combat capability and reduce overall construction 
costs. The large diameter tube also has the potential to field 
new technologies, such as undersea autonomous vehicles, as 
those technologies mature.
    The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 
63561N for design and development of a large diameter weapons 
launch tube for Virginia class submarines.

Threat-D missile target development

    The committee is pleased to note the anticipated source 
selection for the development of a Threat D missile target 
development program in the summer of 2008. The committee 
remains concerned that the estimated initial operating 
capability of such a target in 2014 creates substantial risk 
during the interim period. The committee encourages the 
Secretary to accelerate the target development program to the 
maximum extent practicable. In addition, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Navy to notify the congressional defense 
committees in writing if the estimated initial operating 
capability of the Threat D target is delayed more than 90 days 
or if the costs associated with such program exceeds 10 percent 
of programmed funding. The committee further directs the 
Secretary to provide such notification within 30 days, along 
with the reasons for such delay or cost overrun and a 
mitigation plan consisting of actions that could restore the 
program to its original timeline.

Trigger and alert sonobuoy

    The budget request contained $5.9 million in PE 63216N for 
aviation survivability, but contained no funds for an in-buoy 
processor for a trigger and alert sonobuoy system.
    The committee understands that the Navy currently has a 
series of sonobuoys that require human intervention in order to 
be effective during mission operations. The committee notes 
there are efforts underway to test a sonobuoy system capable of 
autonomous operation that can classify, trigger, and send an 
alert message without human intervention. The committee notes 
that successful completion of this effort could provide a 
significant capability for anti-submarine warfare, diver 
detection, counter narco-terrorism, and harbor protection by 
using autonomous fields of sonobuoys that alert military 
personnel on specific cues.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
63216N for development of an in-buoy processor that implements 
an autonomous trigger and alert sonobuoy system.

Ultraviolet-cure structural repair adhesives

    The budget request contained $122.9 million in PE 25633N 
for aviation improvements, but contained no funds for 
development of ultraviolet-cure structural repair adhesives.
    The committee notes standard structural repair adhesives 
have extremely long cure times ranging 14 days for full cure at 
room temperature, to a forced cure at 180 degrees Fahrenheit 
for 2 hours. The committee understands ultraviolet-cure 
structural repair adhesives have been successfully demonstrated 
through the small business innovation research program and have 
cure times as low as five minutes, and could be developed for 
military aircraft and ground vehicles applications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
25633N for development of ultraviolet-cure structural repair 
adhesives for military use applications.

Urban operations laboratory

    The budget request contained $59.0 million in PE 63635M for 
Marine Corps ground combat support systems, but contained no 
funds for the urban operations laboratory (UOL) program.
    The UOL program focuses on the development and enhancement 
of non-lethal capabilities for use in the urban environment to 
include vehicle stopping systems, bomb detection capabilities, 
and improvised explosive device detection capabilities. The 
committee is aware the Marine Corps has indicated this program 
is a critical, unfunded requirement for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63635M to accelerate the urban operations laboratory program 
and address the Marine Corps unfunded requirement.

VH-71 presidential helicopter program

    The committee understands the need to replace the aging 
fleet of VH-3 and VH-60 helicopters currently in use by the 
executive office of the President of the United States. The 
committee also notes that the total acquisition costs for the 
VH-71 Presidential Helicopter replacement program are projected 
to increase from $6.5 billion to $11.2 billion.
    The committee notes that this cost increase is above a 25 
percent unit cost increase over the program baseline, commonly 
referred to as a ``Nunn-McCurdy breach,'' and will necessitate 
the certification requirements of section 2433 (e)(2)(A) of 
title 10, United States Code.
    The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense will 
submit an analysis of the potential advantages and 
disadvantages of conducting a re-competition for the program 
when the report, required by section 2433 (e)(2)(A), is 
forwarded to the Congress.

Warfighter rapid awareness processing technology

    The budget request contained $36.4 million in PE 62131M for 
Marine Corps landing force technology development, but 
contained no funds for the development of warfighter rapid 
awareness processing technology.
    The committee recognizes warfighter rapid awareness 
processing technology could help to address the expeditionary 
warfighter's need for rapidly configured and deployable 
training environments that use virtual simulation technologies. 
The committee recognizes an integral part of these environments 
are physiologic monitoring technologies for assessing realism 
of the simulation and readiness of the warfighter. The 
committee is aware that warfighter rapid awareness processing 
technology could address a Marine Corps universal need 
statement for a full immersive live/virtual training 
environment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
62131M for the development of warfighter rapid awareness 
processing technology.

         Air Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $28.1 billion for Air Force 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $28.2 billion, an increase of 
$171.7 million to the budget request.


                       Items of Special Interest


B-2 Small Diameter Bomb Moving-Target-Kill integration

    The budget request contained $351.4 million in PE 64240F 
for development of technologies and upgrades for the B-2 
bomber, but contained no funds for continued development of 
Small Diameter Bomb Moving-Target-Kill (SDB/MTK) capability 
integration for the B-2.
    The committee notes that Congress appropriated $12.8 
million in fiscal year 2007 and $5.8 million in fiscal year 
2008 for integration and upgrades to unreliable and 
unsupportable cockpit displays for radar image display and 
targeting functions necessary to implement SDB/MTK capability 
on the B-2. The committee understands that a B-2 SDB/MTK 
capability that includes sensor improvements and integration of 
a low-observable data link capable weapon will provide the 
combat commander a new capability to covertly approach and 
strike moving targets.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.3 million in PE 
64240F for continued development and integration of SDB/MTK for 
the B-2 bomber.

C-130J development

    The budget request contained $52.4 million in PE 41132F for 
development of C-130J block upgrade activities, of which $25.0 
million was included for the international block upgrade.
    The committee understands that the international block 
upgrade is in excess to program requirements since it is not 
executable in fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends $27.4 million in PE 41132F, a 
decrease of $25.0 million.

Combat search and recovery vehicle-x

    The budget request contained $305.1 million in PE 64261F 
for the development of the combat search and recovery vehicle-X 
(CSAR-X). The budget request also contained $15.0 million in 
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for advance procurement of 
CSAR-X long-lead components.
    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 early 
in fiscal year 2007, but these activities have been delayed by 
two bid protests, which were subsequently sustained, and have 
required the Department of the Air Force to re-solicit bids for 
the CSAR-X program. The committee understands that the contract 
award will not occur until late in the first quarter of fiscal 
year 2009. As a result of this delay, the committee notes that 
the Department of the Air Force has identified $40.0 million 
for development of the CSAR-X which exceeds fiscal year 2009 
requirements. Additionally, the committee notes that the 
Government Accountability Office identified $15.0 million for 
advance procurement of CSAR-X long-lead components which, 
according to Department of the Air Force CSAR-X program 
officials, is not required for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends $265.1 million, a decrease of 
$40.0 million in PE 64261F. The committee also recommends no 
funds in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the advance 
procurement of CSAR-X long-lead components, a decrease of $15.0 
million.

Common vertical lift support platform

    The budget request contained $3.9 million in PE 64263F for 
system program office and management support of the common 
vertical lift support platform (CVLSP) program. The CVLSP 
program is a ``new start'' for fiscal year 2009 and would 
provide vertical lift for the Air Force Space Command's nuclear 
weapon security, and for mass passenger transport in the 
National Capital Region. The CVLSP would replace 62 UH-1N 
helicopters which are now used to perform these missions.
    The committee notes that the CVLSP requirements process is 
not complete, the acquisition strategy has not yet been 
developed, and the Department of the Air Force has not 
programmed any funds for this purpose beyond 2009. The 
committee believes that these actions should be taken before 
funds are authorized for this purpose. Therefore the committee 
recommends no funds for the CVLSP in PE 64263F, a decrease of 
$3.9 million.

Cyber boot camp

    The budget request contained $109.5 million in PE 62702F 
for work to develop better command, control, and communications 
systems within the Air Force, including $1.1 million to support 
the Advanced Course in Engineering (ACE) Cyber Boot Camp summer 
program for the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps 
(ROTC).
    The committee applauds the efforts at the Air Force 
Research Laboratory Rome Research Site (AFRL/RRS) to develop 
educational curriculum to develop the future workforce of cyber 
operations experts. The mission of the ACE is to develop ROTC 
cadets into cyber officers and represents the only cyber 
education offered by the Department of Defense for ROTC cadets. 
ACE is a 10-week summer program consisting of classes, on-the-
job mentoring, and officer development that targets the top 
students in computer-related disciplines, and teaches them to 
become original thinkers, problem solvers, and technical 
leaders. The committee recognizes that this program is vital to 
ensuring a robust information technology workforce that is 
capable of handling current and future cyber threats to our 
systems. The committee believes the ACE cyber boot camp should 
be expanded beyond the Air Force to include ROTC cadets from 
the other military services.
    The committee recommends $110.5 million, an increase of 
$1.0 million, in PE 62702F for AFRL/RRS to support the 
expansion of the ACE Cyber Boot curriculum to other service 
ROTC participants, and to provide for additional 10-week 
courses to accommodate this expansion.

Global Command and Control System--Air Force

    The budget request contained $3.2 million in PE 33150F for 
the Global Command and Control System--Air Force.
    The committee is concerned over a lack of commitment by the 
services to transition from service stove-piped command and 
control systems to a joint architecture, such as the Network 
Enabled Command and Control system. The services can no longer 
sustain a multitude of disparate systems, from a technical 
management or financial perspective. Yet there appears to be no 
clear strategy articulated to senior decision makers showing 
how the services will move from multiple independent systems, 
to a joint, federated approach. This approach does not 
necessarily entail adopting a single system, but until the 
services commit to a unified approach to commonality, the 
military services will continue to waste funds and inhibit the 
benefits accrued by jointness.
    The committee recommends $2.2 million, a decrease of $1.0 
million in PE 33150F.

High Accuracy Network Determination System

    The budget request contained $4.8 million in PE 63444F for 
the Maui Space Surveillance System, but 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 supplementing the catalog with system 
characterization information.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63444F for the HANDS program.

Improved reliability for optimized inspection

    The budget request contained $41.9 million in PE 63112F for 
the development of various advanced materials technologies for 
transition into Department of the Air Force systems, but 
contained no funds for development of improved reliability for 
optimized inspection for C-130 maintenance.
    The committee notes that regularly scheduled non-
destructive inspection (NDI) and maintenance of Department of 
the Air Force aircraft require that the aircraft be removed 
from service for extended time periods. The committee 
understands that efforts undertaken to improve confidence in 
the reliability of NDI to assess damage without costly and 
time-consuming maintenance will increase aircraft availability 
and reduce maintenance costs over current practices.
    To improve the NDI inspection process, the committee 
recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63112F for 
development of improved reliability for optimized inspection 
for C-130 maintenance. The committee expects that these funds 
will be used to obtain samples of cracked C-130 parts, 
manufacture samples simulating cracked C-130 parts, perform 
controlled inspections of parts to validate models of 
inspections, and to validate a process for assessing and 
improving inspections.

Intercontinental ballistic missile cryptography upgrade

    The budget request contained $65.6 million in PE 63851F for 
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), but contained no 
funds for the ICBM cryptography upgrade, increment II.
    The committee is aware that the ICBM cryptography upgrade, 
increment II, is an unfunded Air Force requirement.
    The committee recommends $70.6 million, an increase of $5.0 
million, for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles for the ICBM 
cryptography upgrade.

Joint cargo aircraft program

    The budget request contained $26.8 million in PE 41138F for 
development of the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA). The Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force also included $74.8 million on the 
unfunded requirements list for procurement of two special 
operations JCA. The committee notes that a Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council validated requirement for a special 
operations JCA does not currently exist within the Department 
of Defense.
    The committee notes that during the fiscal year 2008 budget 
cycle, the congressional defense committees raised concerns 
over the requirements for JCA, whether or not it is needed to 
fulfill Department of Defense intra-theater airlift 
requirements, and which service, either Army or Air Force, 
should operate the platform. As a result, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) 
restricted the program from obligating or expending 
appropriated funds until submission of six Department of 
Defense initiated studies to the congressional defense 
committees. The committee notes that none of these important 
studies were directed by Congress and could have informed JCA 
program decisions more effectively had they been timed prior to 
program Milestone C certification by the Undersecretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)).
    The committee understands that during the acquisition 
strategy review process, USD(AT&L) added a caveat to the June 
20, 2006 Memorandum of Agreement between the Services that 
directed further analysis be conducted to determine the 
appropriate JCA aircraft inventory. USD(AT&L) directed the 
Services to jointly perform an update to the Army Analysis of 
Alternatives, with an Air Force requirement to support both 
Departments by providing an Intra-theater Airlift Fleet Mix 
Analysis (IAFMA) to determine the Services' JCA inventory 
requirements. The IAFMA was completed and submitted to Congress 
in February 2008.
    The committee emphasizes that contrary to USD(AT&L) tasking 
and intent, the IAFMA did not assess the Army's time-sensitive 
cargo mission or requirements, and notes that the IAFMA makes 
an unsubstantiated statement in its findings that the Air Force 
should procure no more than 24 aircraft to meet the Army's 
time-sensitive cargo mission requirements. The committee also 
emphasizes that the IAFMA states that it is more cost-effective 
for the Air Force to procure the C-130J aircraft and found that 
the JCA was not effective in any of the 2005 Mobility 
Capabilities Study (MCS) scenarios. The committee also notes 
that in written testimony provided to the subcommittee on Air & 
Land Forces on April 1, 2008, the Commander, Air Mobility 
Command stated that the JCA is 60 to 70 percent less cost-
effective than the C-130J in performing MCS missions.
    The committee is very concerned by the lack of analytical 
basis used to justify procurement of JCA and is discouraged by 
the decision-making process used by USD(AT&L) during the 
Milestone C process. The committee notes that the decision of 
USD(AT&L) on May 30, 2007, concerning the division of 78 
aircraft between the Army and Air Force was based on what each 
service had programmed at the time in the Future Years Defense 
Plan (FYDP), and not on analytical findings. Additionally, the 
committee notes that the Air Force's fiscal year 2007 
Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment study recommends that 
funding for JCA be reallocated for higher priority Air Force 
mobility programs.
    Finally, the committee is concerned by the cost difference 
of JCA, compared to the cost and capability of C-130J. The 
committee notes that the Air Force unit cost for JCA is $60.7 
million and the unit cost for a C-130J is $56.7 million. The 
committee further notes that the C-130J has twice the airlift 
capability of the JCA and has flight performance 
characteristics very similar to the JCA. The committee 
understands the Air Force plans to allocate 24 JCA among 6 Air 
National Guard basing locations in the states of Maryland, 
Ohio, Connecticut, North Dakota, Mississippi, and Michigan. The 
committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to thoroughly 
review FYDP funding for JCA and determine if it is more cost-
effective and prudent to utilize that funding for 24 additional 
C-130J aircraft to support future missions of the Air National 
Guard units programmed to receive JCA.

Joint strike fighter

    The budget request contained $1.5 billion in PE 64800F, and 
$1.5 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 budget request also 
contained $136.9 million for F-35 advance procurement in 
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the long-lead components 
necessary to procure 12 F-35A aircraft in fiscal year 2010, but 
contained no funds for advance procurement of competitive JSF 
propulsion system long-lead components.
    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 John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, and once again 
in the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the 
committee recommended increases for the JSF competitive 
propulsion system, and notes that in both cases, the other 
three congressional defense committees concurred. Despite 
section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), which requires the 
Secretary of Defense to obligate and expend sufficient annual 
amounts for the continued development and procurement of a 
competitive propulsion system for the JSF, the committee is 
disappointed that the Department of Defense (DOD) chose not to 
comply with both the spirit and intent of this provision by 
opting not to include funds for this purpose in the budget 
request.
    On March 11, 2008, the Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces 
and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces held a hearing at which 
the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics (USD (AT&L)) and the Government Accountability 
Office's (GAO) Director of Acquisition Sourcing and Management 
testified. Witnesses were asked to provide an update to the 
independent lifecycle cost analysis of the JSF propulsion 
system required by section 211 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) based on the obligation of an additional $480.0 million 
authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2008, performance 
of the competitive engine program to date, and the additional 
year of development. The GAO Director of Acquisition and 
Sourcing Management complied with the subcommittees' request 
and testified that the Department of Defense would recoup its 
initial investment costs with program savings of between 9 and 
11 percent, or about 1.3 percent less than the GAO reported in 
2007. He also testified that at least that amount of savings 
could be achieved in the long run based on analysis of actual 
data from the F-16 engine competition. Opting not to comply 
with the committee request, the USD (AT&L) testified that the 
Department did not direct the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense's Cost Analysis and Improvement Group to update its 
analysis from the previous year, and that there had been no 
significant changes to the program that would have resulted in 
any changes to their findings. Based on this testimony, the 
committee believes that a competitive propulsion system for the 
JSF offers the promise of long-term savings.
    The committee also notes that in August 2007, the 
currently-planned F135 engine experienced a hardware failure 
during test stand operations with the short take-off and 
vertical land (STOVL) lift fan engaged, and that a similar 
failure occurred again in February 2008, and that these engine 
failure will result in a currently-projected delay to the first 
flight of the F-35 STOVL variant by 30 to 60 days. While the 
committee understands that the F135 engine is still in 
development and test failures may occur, the committee believes 
that, over the long-term, a competitive JSF propulsion program 
will result in improved engine performance for all JSF 
variants. These test failure events and the subcommittees' 
hearing testimony cause the committee to remain steadfast in 
its belief that the non-financial factors of a two-engine 
competitive program such as better engine performance, improved 
contractor responsiveness, a more robust industrial base, 
increased engine reliability and improved operational readiness 
strongly favor continuing the competitive propulsion system 
program.
    For continued development of the competitive JSF propulsion 
system program, the committee recommends $1.8 billion, an 
increase of $247.5 million in PE 64800F, and $1.8 billion, an 
increase of $247.5 million in PE 64800N. The committee also 
recommends $167.9 million, an increase of $31.0 million for 
advance procurement of competitive JSF propulsion system long-
lead components, for F-35 advance procurement in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force. Additionally, the committee strongly 
urges the Department of Defense to comply with the spirit and 
intent of section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) by including the 
funds necessary for continued development and procurement of a 
competitive JSF propulsion system in its fiscal year 2010 
budget request.

Low profile arresting gear

    The budget request contained $28.9 million in PE 65978F to 
sustain the inventory of the Air Force Material Command's test 
and evaluation facilities, but contained no funds to test the 
low profile arresting gear (LPAG).
    The committee notes that numerous airports across the 
United States host both military and commercial flight 
operations concurrently. Many military tactical aircraft have 
arresting hooks for use in emergency situations; however 
installation of arresting equipment for military use may cause 
interference to large commercial aircraft due to the size of 
the arresting equipment engines and their close proximity to 
the runway. To address this problem, the Department of the Air 
Force has introduced the Airfield Obstruction Reduction 
Initiative (AORI) program. The committee understands that the 
LPAG would be consistent with the AORI requirements since it 
would minimize physical interference and obstructions to 
commercial aircraft, while providing the necessary arresting 
equipment for military tactical aircraft use.
    The committee recommends $29.9 million, an increase of $1.0 
million, in PE 65978F to test the LPAG.

Metals affordability initiative

    The budget request contained $41.9 million in PE 63112F for 
advanced materials for weapon systems.
    The committee supports the continued government-industry 
collaboration provided through the Metals Affordability 
Initiative. It provides significant improvements in the 
manufacturing of specialty metals for aerospace applications 
for the government and aerospace industry, and provides 
improved affordability of aerospace materials.
    The committee recommends an additional $14.0 million in PE 
63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative.

Multiple unmanned aerial vehicle employment against a common objective

    The budget request contained $149.8 million in PE 35206F 
for airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained no funds for 
the employment of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 
against a common objective.
    The committee notes the operational utility of operating 
large numbers of UAVs, yet notes the increased difficulty of 
operating multiple UAVs in close proximity because of limited 
bandwidth availability. United States Central Command issued an 
operational need statement to meet an objective requirement for 
the Predator UAV to operate up to eight air vehicles 
simultaneously from a single ground station.
    The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE 
35206F for demonstration and deployment of multiple UAV 
employment against a common objective.

Next-generation tactical environmental clothing

    The budget request contained $5.7 million in PE 48011F for 
special tactics-combat control, but contained no funds for 
next-generation tactical environmental clothing for Air Force 
Special Operations Command (AFSOC) special tactics teams and 
combat controllers.
    The committee recognizes 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 could reduce the effects of 
moisture on the body and could provide superior antimicrobial 
characteristics. The committee believes these materials could 
benefit military personnel who operate in prolonged harsh 
combat conditions.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
48011F for the continued development and demonstration of next 
generation tactical environmental clothing for AFSOC special 
tactics teams and forward combat air controllers.

Non-attribution of open source intelligence research

    The budget request contained funds in PE 31310F for the 
National Air Intelligence Center, but contained no funds to 
support expanded open source research to complement traditional 
intelligence analytical products.
    The committee recognizes that open source intelligence 
provides a critical complementary capability to traditional 
intelligence gathering and analysis. The committee is 
encouraged by the growing recognition within the military and 
intelligence communities of the value of open source 
intelligence which is punctuated by the establishment of the 
Open Source Center and the development of an Army field manual 
on open source intelligence.
    Efforts in this area will require collectors to operate in 
benign cyberspace domains, such as media websites and academic 
databases, as well as more hostile areas, such as foreign 
language blogging websites and even websites maintained by 
terrorist or state-actors groups. The committee is concerned 
about the ability of our adversaries to be able to track and 
attribute collection activities to U.S. and allied forces. 
Technology exists to provide non-attribution services to 
protect identities, especially source country of origin.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure, 
through the use of all reasonable means, protection of 
government investigators involved in gathering open source 
intelligence. These means should include proven non-attribution 
services, as well as development of appropriate tactics, 
techniques and procedures that are incorporated into manuals 
and training programs.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $3.0 million, 
in PE 31310F to support the development of training packages 
for new analysts that address how to integrate open source into 
analytic products, as well as techniques for maintaining 
anonymity online when conducting research. This funding may 
also be used to support development of new tools to promote 
open source research, and associated experimentation and 
evaluation that may be needed to validate both the tools and 
training.

Operationally responsive space

    The budget request contained $110.0 million in PE 64857F 
for operationally responsive space (ORS) programs.
    The committee remains supportive of ORS, but is concerned 
about the implementation of the ORS program office mandated by 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The committee observes that 
nearly two years after its establishment, the program office 
remains considerably understaffed with only 3 billets filled 
out of 20 authorized. In the near-term, the committee 
encourages efforts to leverage available technology for on-
orbit demonstrations and investments in common components and 
interface standards to facilitate building a robust pipeline of 
ORS systems for on-demand space support and reconstitution. 
Responsive processes, coordination mechanisms, and acquisitions 
are equally important to the success of ORS. The committee also 
recognizes that a balance must be struck between near-term and 
future capabilities, particularly in the area of space launch 
vehicle (SLV) development. The committee is aware of several 
low-cost, responsive SLV concepts and encourages the Department 
to develop a longer-term strategy that includes opportunities 
for competition.
    The budget request for ORS contained no funds for the 
Operational Airborne Sensor In Space (OASIS) program. The 
committee notes that the United States Strategic Command has a 
stated mission need for operationally responsive day-night 
visual sensors on tactical space platforms. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the 
development an electro-optical/infrared sensor for an ORS 
spacecraft.
    The committee recommends $120.0 million in PE 64857F for 
operationally responsive space, including $10.0 million for 
OASIS.

RAND Project Air Force

    The budget request contained $28.7 million in PE 65101F for 
RAND Project Air Force.
    The committee notes with concern that funding requested for 
RAND Project Air Force declined significantly from fiscal year 
2007 levels. The committee is concerned with the lack of stable 
funding for this program, and encourages the Air Force to 
provide stable funding for RAND Project Air Force.
    The committee recommends $31.7 million, an increase of $3.0 
million, in PE 65101F for RAND Project Air Force.

Single-mode optical connectors for advanced air vehicles

    The budget request contained $122.9 million in PE 62201F 
for aerospace vehicle technologies, but contained no funds for 
the development of single-mode optical connectors for advanced 
air vehicles.
    The United States aerospace vehicles (manned and unmanned) 
require processing of increasing amounts of data for 
communications, mission computers, and sensor and flight 
control systems in order to fly, fight, and win in increasingly 
dangerous aerospace environments. The committee notes that as 
the demand for bandwidth increases, so too does the need to 
protect this information from external threat such as 
electromagnetic interference (EMI). The development of single-
mode multi-channel optical connectors in support of fly-by-
light technology could lead to improvements in data 
transmission, reduced equipment costs, safer aircraft 
operations, and improved resistance to EMI.
    The committee recommends $124.4 million, an increase of 
$1.5 million, in PE 62201F for the development of single-mode 
optical connectors.

Space control test capabilities

    The budget request contained $74.9 million in PE 64421F for 
counterspace systems, but contained no funds for the space 
control test capabilities program.
    The space control test capabilities program supports the 
development of an architecture analysis tool to address 
integration and optimization of space control systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
64421F for the space control test capabilities program.

Third Generation Infrared Surveillance

    The budget request contained $149.1 million in PE 64443F 
for development of the Third Generation Infrared Surveillance 
(3GIRS).
    The 3GIRS program is designed to provide advanced 
capability in warning of ballistic missile attacks on the 
United States, its deployed forces, and its allies, while also 
supporting missile defense, battlespace awareness, and 
technical intelligence missions. The program, originally 
referred to as the Alternative Infrared Satellite System 
(AIRSS), was initiated in 2006, as a result of a Nunn-McCurdy 
review of the Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS)-High program 
to generate competition for the third SBIRS geosynchronous 
orbit (GEO) satellite and explore alternative technologies.
    With the Defense Acquisition Executive's decision to 
procure SBIRS GEO-3 in July 2007, and following congressional 
guidance, the Air Force has redirected AIRSS resources to 
pursue risk reduction, system definition, and ground tests to 
enable a third generation space based infrared program after 
the SBIRS GEO-3 satellite is delivered.
    Originally conceived as a low technical risk system, the 
3GIRS program now includes significant technology development 
and a potential flight test demonstration. Both activities add 
additional risk to the program and have limited benefits in the 
near-term. With the success achieved by the Space Based 
Infrared System highly elliptical orbit payload in 2007, the 
committee finds the 3GIRS development program is premature.
    The committee recommends $75.0 million, a decrease of $74.1 
million to the 3GIRS program, in PE 64443F to support continued 
development of wide field-of-view focal plane technology.

Winglets for in-service aerial refueling aircraft

    The committee commends the Air Force for its efforts to 
increase aircraft fuel efficiency and decrease fuel 
consumption. The committee notes that initiatives such as re-
engining aircraft, modifying in-flight profiles, and revising 
aircraft ground operations contribute to decreased fuel 
consumption and increased life-cycle savings.
    The committee is aware that winglet technology exists for 
aircraft to increase fuel efficiency, improve take-off 
performance, increase cruise altitudes, and increase payload 
and range capability. The committee notes that winglets are 
currently used on commercial aircraft and result in a five to 
seven percent increase in fuel efficiency. The committee 
believes that incorporating winglets on military aircraft could 
increase fuel efficiency on certain platforms and that the Air 
Force should examine incorporating this technology onto its 
platforms.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007, the committee directed the Secretary of the Air Force to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees 
examining the feasibility of modifying Air Force aircraft with 
winglets. The Air Force report preliminarily concluded that 
between $36.0 million and $400.0 million in fuel savings could 
be achieved for the KC-135R tanker aircraft and between $12.0 
million and $221.0 million could be achieved for the KC-10 
tanker aircraft if modified with winglets. However, the 
committee notes that the report stated that it is not possible 
to know the actual modification costs and fuel savings without 
performing a detailed engineering analysis for each aircraft 
type.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
task a federally funded research and development center to 
conduct an engineering analysis on modifying KC-135R and KC-10 
tanker aircraft with winglets and submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by May 1, 2009. For the 
engineering analysis and report, the Secretary of the Air Force 
shall: use current performance data for each aircraft; include 
a cost comparison analysis for the cost of winglet 
modifications compared to the return on investment realized 
over time for each aircraft during its programmed service-life; 
determine the market price of JP-8 aviation jet fuel at which 
incorporating winglets would be beneficial for each aircraft 
mission design series; assess all positive and negative impacts 
to aircraft maintenance and flight operations; and analyze 
investment strategies the Air Force could implement with 
commercial partners to minimize Air Force capital investment 
and maximize investment return.

Wire integrity technology program

    The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 63680F for 
the development of manufacturing technology programs, but 
contained no funds for development of a wire integrity 
technology program.
    The committee understands that the Department of the Air 
Force currently relies on out-dated testing equipment and 
repair technologies to sustain aging aircraft wiring systems. 
To address this deficiency, the committee believes that a wire 
integrity technology program would develop and test new wire 
materials, develop advanced testing equipment to ensure 
accurate fault detection, develop processes and procedures for 
wire manufacturing technology, and improve workforce training 
in repair and analysis of aircraft wiring systems.
    The committee recommends $41.7 million, an increase of $2.0 
million, in PE 63680F for development of a wire integrity 
technology program, and believes that this program has the 
potential to reduce the approximately $300.0 million expended 
annually on wiring inspections, and improve weapon system 
reliability and safety.

        Defense Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $21.5 billion for Defense Wide 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $20.8 billion, a decrease of 
$654.4 million to the budget request.


        Operational Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $188.8 million for Operational 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E).
    The committee recommends $188.8 million, the requested 
amount for fiscal year 2009.


                       Items of Special Interest


Acquisition of foreign material for training purposes

    The budget request contained $62.8 million in PE 65117D8Z 
for foreign material acquisition and exploitation, but 
contained no funds to acquire quality, cost effective, and 
realistic training aids to be distributed evenly to the joint 
service explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) community.
    The committee understands the importance of realistic 
training aids in providing effective training for EOD 
technicians, especially considering the challenges faced in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The 
insurgencies in those two nations have proven to be resourceful 
in the use of readily available materials, and highly adaptive 
in responding to our countermeasures. Lessons learning in those 
areas of responsibility are also rapidly proliferating to other 
areas due to the ubiquity of the internet to provide anonymous 
communications capacity. Without the ability to quickly acquire 
realistic systems and develop training packages for the EOD 
community, American forces will be unable to keep within the 
decision cycle of our adversaries, jeopardizing the lives of 
coalition forces and civilians.
    The committee recommends $67.8 million, an increase of $5.0 
million, in PE 65117D8Z.

Advanced energy storage technology initiative

    The budget request contained $9.3 million in PE 63618D8Z 
for joint electronic advanced technology.
    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, which 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: thin lithium-ion 
disulfide batteries; rechargeable lithium batteries; carbonate 
fuel cells; polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell auxiliary 
power units; mobile micro-grid energy storage devices; fuel 
cells and electrochemical energy storage; domestically-produced 
lithium-ion battery materials and safer lithium ion battery 
designs; lithium ion superpolymer battery systems for future 
vehicle power; novel zinc air power sources for soldier power; 
fuel cell demonstrations for backup power; fuel cell hybrid 
electrical generation systems; acid alkaline direct methanol 
fuel cell technology; and carbon nanotube enhanced power 
sources for space. 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 $19.3 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 63618D8Z for the advanced energy storage 
technology initiative.

Analysis of the industrial base for space acquisitions

    The Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) within the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense recently conducted an 
analysis of the industrial base for the hardware elements of 
space programs that identified significant challenges. The 
committee believes this analysis should be maintained and 
updated on a regular basis. The committee also notes that 
current and planned space systems are software dependent, and 
recommends the industrial base study be broadened to analyze 
the industrial capabilities and capacity to respond to future 
software requirements.
    The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 
task the CAIG to analyze the industrial base that supports the 
development and production of space systems on a regular basis. 
The committee further directs the Secretary to provide a report 
to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2008, on 
the health of the industrial base supporting space acquisitions 
and plans for monitoring the industrial base in the future.

Army advanced hypersonic weapon

    The budget request contained $117.6 million in PE 64165D8Z 
for Prompt Global Strike Capability development, including no 
funds for the Army advanced hypersonic weapon.
    The committee is aware that the Army has been developing 
the advanced hypersonic weapon under the auspices of a separate 
Army program. The committee believes that the Army should 
continue its work in coordination with the Defense-wide Prompt 
Global Strike program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
64165D8Z for Army advanced hypersonic weapon technology 
development.

Ballistic missile defense

    The committee is concerned that the Missile Defense Agency 
remains too focused on the threat from long-range missiles and 
is not devoting sufficient resources and attention on threats 
from short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Such short- 
and medium-range missiles represent the overwhelming ballistic 
missile threat to U.S. interests, deployed forces, and allies 
around the world. The Joint Capabilities Mix II study, 
sponsored by the U.S. Strategic Command in 2007, is just one 
example of combatant commanders reporting to Congress that the 
United States does not currently possess sufficient numbers of 
regional missile defense capabilities to counter the current 
and growing threat from short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles.
    Elsewhere in this title, the committee has re-prioritized 
resources away from systems designed to address longer-term 
threats and focused them instead on closing existing capability 
gaps against short- and medium-range threats. As the Department 
of Defense begins to develop its fiscal year 2010 budget, the 
committee urges it to focus greater attention on the threat 
from short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
            Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
    The budget request contained $1.2 billion in PE 63892C, for 
the sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), which is 
designed to defend against short-, medium-, and intermediate-
range ballistic missiles.
    The committee notes its continuing concern that the Missile 
Defense Agency is not providing sufficient funds for Aegis BMD. 
Given the threat posed by short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles, the committee is concerned that the 133 Standard 
Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors that are currently planned will 
be insufficient. The committee's views are consistent with the 
results of the recently completed Joint Capabilities Mix Study 
II, which concluded that combatant commanders require nearly 
twice as many SM-3 interceptors than the 133 now planned. 
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee has increased funding for 
SM-3 production.
    The committee also notes its strong support for the United 
States-Japan Cooperative Development Program, which is co-
developing the SM-3 Block IIA missile designed to counter 
longer-range ballistic missile threats. The committee expects 
the Missile Defense Agency to continue to support the 
development of the current unitary kill vehicle for that 
interceptor.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 
63892C for the purchase of additional ballistic missile signal 
processors. Furthermore, in accordance with section 223 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), the committee recommends the transfer of $56.0 
million for procurement of SM-3 interceptors to title 1.
    The committee, therefore, recommends a total of $1.1 
billion, a decrease of $36.0 million, in PE 63892C for Aegis 
BMD.
            Airborne Laser
    The budget request contained $421.2 million in PE 63883C 
for the Airborne Laser (ABL) Capability Development program.
    The committee continues to have serious concerns about the 
ABL program. The ABL program has suffered numerous delays and 
cost increases since its inception in 1996, and is currently 
estimated to cost $5.1 billion, five times greater than the 
original cost estimate, from inception to completion of its 
first lethal shoot-down test, currently scheduled for 2009. 
Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated 
that it could cost as much as $36.0 billion to develop, 
procure, and operate a fleet of 7 ABL aircraft for 20 years.
    The committee notes several challenges remain for the ABL 
program that will not be addressed as part of the lethal shoot-
down test in 2009, including ABL's inherent operational 
constraints. Additional testing is required to demonstrate 
operational capability and military utility. The committee is 
also concerned about the number of ABL aircraft required to 
maintain an operational ABL patrol.
    The committee notes that even if the 2009 shoot down 
demonstration is successful, it will not demonstrate whether 
ABL will be operationally effective, survivable, or affordable. 
Before a decision is made to begin procuring additional ABL 
aircraft, the committee believes that a full review of this 
program, and other potential boost phase defense systems, is 
required. Elsewhere in this title, the committee directs a 
review of options for boost phase missile defense systems. The 
committee therefore believes it is premature to begin planning 
for the procurement of a second ABL aircraft as requested in 
the budget request. Furthermore, the committee has also reduced 
funding for activities not directly required to achieve the 
2009 shoot down demonstration.
    The committee recommends $378.6 million, a decrease of 
$42.6 million, in PE 63883C for the ABL program, and authorizes 
no funding for a second ABL aircraft.
            Arrow Weapons System
    The State of Israel has indicated a requirement for a 
follow-on system to the existing Arrow Weapons System to 
improve its capability to engage ballistic missiles at longer 
ranges. It has also noted an interest in developing a new 
weapons system, the Arrow-3, to meet this requirement.
    The committee strongly supports ongoing cooperation with 
Israel in the area of missile defense. The committee, however, 
questions the necessity of developing a new program when 
current missile defense systems may be able to meet Israel's 
requirements. Recent analysis by the Missile Defense Agency 
indicates that existing missile defense systems such as the 
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) would provide equal or better 
capability than the proposed Arrow-3. The SM-3 is a more 
mature, demonstrated technology that could provide capability 
for Israel on a faster timeline and at less cost.
    Before proceeding with the development of the Arrow-3, the 
committee urges Israel and the Department of Defense to conduct 
a full review of existing missile defense systems to determine 
the most cost-effective solution to meet the missile defense 
requirements of Israel and the United States.
            Ballistic missile defense discrimination radar in Israel
    The committee notes that the State of Israel faces a real 
and growing threat from short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles from states such as the Syrian Arab Republic and the 
Islamic Republic of Iran. The committee believes that the 
deployment of a U.S. Army-Navy/Transportable-2 (AN/TPY-2) 
missile defense discrimination radar to Israel would greatly 
increase the capabilities of both Israel and U.S. forces 
deployed in support of Israel to defend against ballistic 
missile threats. Therefore, the committee urges the Department 
of Defense to begin discussions with Israel about the 
possibility of deploying an AN/TPY-2 radar on its territory at 
the earliest feasible date.
            Ballistic missile defense reductions
    The budget request contained $432.2 million in PE 63890C 
for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Core, $86.4 million in PE 
91598C for Management Headquarters-Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA), $118.7 million in PE 63175C for ballistic missile 
defense technology, and $288.3 million in PE 63891C for Missile 
Defense Agency special programs.
    The committee recommends $412.2 million, a decrease of 
$20.0 million, in PE 63890C for BMD Core; $81.4 million, a 
decrease of $5.0 million, in PE 91598C for Management 
Headquarters-MDA; $113.7 million, a decrease of $5.0 million, 
for BMD technology; and $138.3 million, a decrease of $150.0 
million, in PE 63891C for MDA special programs to partially 
offset the additional funding for other higher priority defense 
programs.
            Ballistic missile defense sensors
    The budget request contained $1.1 billion in PE 63884C for 
ballistic missile defense sensors.
    The request for sensors included $97.8 million in title II 
for the proposed European Midcourse Radar (EMR). Elsewhere in 
this Act, the committee has reduced funding for the military 
construction of the proposed radar site out of concern over the 
ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2009. The 
committee expects these changes will have an impact on the 
ability to execute research and development-funded activities 
according to the proposed schedule.
    The request also included funding for deployment and site 
preparation efforts to deploy Army-Navy/Transportable Radar 
(AN/TPY-2) #3, at a potential foreign location. According to 
Department of Defense budget documents, these funds will be 
used to assist with planning and coordination with the host 
nation and combatant commanders, radar site design, site 
construction, transport of the radar to an overseas site, radar 
set-up, calibration, site security, and activation. The 
committee finds this request to be premature, as the Department 
of Defense has not yet made an internal decision on where to 
place AN/TPY-2 #3, nor have negotiations begun with a potential 
host nation.
    The committee recommends $978.0 million, a decrease of 
$98.9 million, in PE 63884C including a reduction of $48.9 
million for the EMR and a reduction of $50.0 million for AN/
TPY-2 #3.
            Ballistic missile defense system space program
    The budget request contained $29.8 million in PE 63895C for 
the ballistic missile defense (BMD) system space program, 
including funding for a proposed space test bed.
    According to the Missile Defense Agency, the purpose of the 
space test bed is to examine options for deploying space-based 
missile defense interceptors in the future. The committee does 
not support the deployment of space-based interceptors.
    The committee recommends $19.8 million for the BMD system 
space program, a decrease of $10.0 million, in PE 63895C and 
authorizes no funds for the proposed space test bed.
            European Ground-based Midcourse Defense component
    The budget request contained $2.1 billion in PE 63882C for 
the Ground-based, Midcourse Defense (GMD) program, of which 
$317.0 million is for the proposed GMD interceptor site in the 
Republic of Poland and associated equipment.
    In January 2007, the Administration announced negotiations 
with Poland and the Czech Republic about the possibility of 
deploying long-range missile defense interceptors and radars in 
their respective territories to defend against a potential 
long-range missile threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran. 
While the Administration reached a tentative agreement in April 
2008 with the Czech Republic, it has not concluded negotiations 
with Poland.
    The committee remains concerned about the potential 
effectiveness of the two-stage GMD interceptor to perform its 
mission in the European theater. The committee notes that the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has 
observed that the employment of the proposed two-stage 
interceptor in European defensive operations is not well 
understood, and has recommended additional testing of the two-
stage interceptor, including against multiple, threat 
representative targets.
    The committee welcomes the Missile Defense Agency's recent 
decision to add an additional test of the two-stage 
interceptor, but notes that it is unclear at this point whether 
that third test will include all of the key recommendations 
made by DOT&E, including, for example, a recommended salvo 
test. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency and the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation to prepare a jointly agreed plan to ensure the 
European-based GMD assets can successfully accomplish their 
mission. The plan shall be submitted to the congressional 
defense committees by December 1, 2008.
    Section 222 of this title would limit the availability of 
funds for the acquisition of operational, two-stage GMD 
interceptors until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the 
interceptor has demonstrated, through operationally realistic 
testing, a high probability of operational effectiveness. The 
committee views such a certification as unattainable in fiscal 
year 2009, because the first of three tests of the system is 
not planned until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009. In 
light of the time necessary for the three planned tests and 
subsequent certification, the committee views funding in fiscal 
year 2009 for operational interceptors premature.
    The committee notes that the proposed long-range 
interceptors in Poland would not be able to protect the 
southern portions of Europe against existing Iranian short- and 
medium-range ballistic missiles. The committee is concerned 
that it may be premature to move forward at the pace 
recommended by the Administration given the fact that the long-
range missile threat from Iran has yet to emerge and neither 
the United States nor our North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
allies have sufficient regional missile defense capabilities to 
meet current short-and medium-range Iranian ballistic missile 
threats.
    The committee has long advocated the need to win NATO 
support for the proposed deployment, and welcomes the 
Alliance's April 3, 2008, Bucharest Summit Declaration which 
recognized the ``substantial contribution to the protection of 
Allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided the 
planned deployment of European-based United States missile 
defence assets.'' The committee encourages further actions to 
ensure that United States and NATO missile defense systems are 
fully integrated in the future.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee has reduced funding 
for the military construction of the proposed European GMD 
interceptor site out of concern over the ability to fully 
expend the funding in fiscal year 2009. The committee expects 
these changes will have an impact on the ability to execute 
research and development-funded activities according to the 
proposed schedule.
    In view of these concerns, the committee recommends $1.9 
billion, a decrease of $182.0 million, in PE 63882C for the 
proposed GMD interceptor site in Poland and associated 
equipment.
            Kinetic Energy Interceptor
    The budget request contained $386.8 million in PE 63886C 
for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI).
    The KEI program has been described by the Missile Defense 
Agency as both a potential boost phase defense system and a 
follow-on to the current generation of Ground-based Midcourse 
Defense (GMD) system. The Missile Defense Agency's current 
emphasis for the KEI program is as a follow-on to the current 
GMD program.
    The committee questions the urgency of a GMD follow-on 
program at this time. The Missile Defense Agency has only just 
begun deploying the existing GMD interceptors in Alaska and 
California. The committee understands those interceptors have 
an expected service-life of at least 20 years. Given the 
limited number of long-range missile threats that the United 
States will likely face in the near-to mid-term from rogue 
states, the planned inventory of 54 GMD interceptors should be 
sufficient to address that threat.
    The committee believes some investment in a follow-on 
system is warranted, but not at the level requested. Therefore, 
the committee recommends $286.8 million, a decrease of $100.0 
million, in PE 63886C for KEI.
            Missile defense force structure
    The committee is concerned about how the Department of 
Defense sets its force structure and establishes inventory 
requirements for missile defense. The committee does not 
believe that the Missile Defense Agency has the appropriate 
expertise to set missile defense force structure requirements. 
The committee notes a general lack of transparency and 
methodology in the development of current missile defense force 
requirements. The committee is concerned that the Department 
has not yet determined the production quantities and 
operational force level requirements to address the full-range 
of ballistic missile threats that confront the United States.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
comprehensive plan for setting future missile defense force 
structure and inventory requirements. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report by April 15, 2009, to 
the congressional defense committees which identifies:
          (1) The methodology for determining current and 
        future missile defense force structure and inventory 
        requirements;
          (2) The Department's specific process for making 
        decisions related to force structure and inventory 
        requirements;
          (3) The expected roles and responsibilities of all 
        relevant organizations for analyzing force structure 
        and inventory requirements, including the Joint Staff, 
        the military services, Missile Defense Agency, 
        combatant commands, intelligence organizations, and the 
        Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation; and
          (4) Which elements (e.g., Missile Defense Agency, the 
        military services) within the Department will be 
        responsible for procuring additional missile defense 
        inventory.
            Missile defense program element structure
    The committee continues to believe that the Missile Defense 
Agency program element (PE) structure is too broad, and that 
this structure needs to be further refined to provide Congress 
greater transparency into missile defense programs.
    Therefore, starting with the fiscal year 2010 budget 
submission, the committee directs the Director of the Missile 
Defense Agency to provide separate PE numbers for each specific 
element in the Terminal Defense Segment and within Ballistic 
Missile Defense Sensors. These new PE numbers should include: 
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense; Israeli Cooperative 
Programs; Upgraded Early Warning Radars; Sea-based, X-Band 
radar; Army-Navy/Transportable Radars; and European Midcourse 
Radar.
            Missile defense program oversight
    In 2002, the Secretary of Defense granted the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) unusual flexibility to deploy an initial 
missile defense system for the United States, including an 
exemption from the normal Department of Defense requirements 
process. Now that the initial system has been developed and 
deployed, the committee believes there is less rationale for 
maintaining this flexibility. The committee believes the 
Missile Defense Agency must begin to transition into more 
normal defense planning and budget processes.
    In August 2007, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) 
Chairman recommended that the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
transition the Missile Defense Agency back into standard 
departmental processes and direct the JROC to provide oversight 
of MDA. Rather than implement this proposal, the Department of 
Defense established a new senior-level group, the Missile 
Defense Executive Board (MDEB), in March 2007, to improve 
oversight and integration of MDA activities.
    The committee is concerned that these processes may not 
enable the JROC and the services to effectively validate 
missile defense requirements. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in his capacity 
as chairman of the JROC, and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to provide a report to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services within 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act that assesses whether the newly established MDEB 
process:
          (1) Allows the JROC to provide effective military 
        advice to validate missile defense capabilities;
          (2) Facilitates the synchronization of MDA-fielded 
        assets with other air and missile defense capabilities 
        being developed; and
          (3) Enables the military departments to appropriately 
        plan and program resources for the fielding and 
        sustainment of MDA-fielded assets.
            Missile defense testing and targets
    The budget request contained $665.4 million in PE 63888C 
for ballistic missile defense test and targets.
    The committee is concerned about the testing program for 
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. The Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) conducted a successful intercept test of 
GMD in September 2007, its second successful intercept since 
2002. However, the committee believes that more frequent and 
rigorous testing of the system is needed to demonstrate the 
system's operational effectiveness.
    The Director of the Department of Defense Operational Test 
and Evaluation (DOT&E) office has raised similar concerns, 
noting in the DOT&E fiscal year 2007 annual report, ``GMD 
flight testing to date is not sufficient to provide a high 
degree of statistical confidence in its limited capabilities . 
. . additional flight test data under realistic conditions is 
necessary to validate models and simulations and to increase 
confidence in the ability of these models and simulations to 
accurately assess system capability.''
    The committee is also concerned with the MDA targets 
program, and notes the failure to produce sufficient reliable 
targets has become the pacing item of the Missile Defense 
Agency's entire test program. The committee notes that the 
Flexible Target Family (FTF) has become more complex and 
expensive than originally estimated.
    The committee, therefore, recommends $690.4 million, an 
increase of $25.0 million, in PE 63888C for target development. 
Additionally, the committee directs the Missile Defense Agency 
to re-assess both its testing program for the GMD program and 
target acquisition strategy including the FTF initiative. The 
committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to 
deliver a report within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act to the congressional defense committees describing the 
results of this assessment and a plan to:
          (1) Increase the frequency and rigor of GMD testing; 
        and
          (2) Increase the quantity and reliability of missile 
        defense targets.
            Multiple Kill Vehicle
    The budget request contained $354.5 million in PE 63894C 
for the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program.
    The committee supports research into options for ultimately 
replacing the unitary exo-atmospheric kill vehicles (EKV) on 
the existing and future fleet of long-range, mid-course 
interceptors. However, the committee believes the Missile 
Defense Agency is moving forward too quickly with development 
of the MKV program, and notes that Missile Defense Agency has 
not yet fully demonstrated the capabilities of the existing 
EKV.
    The committee also notes that the Missile Defense Agency 
intends to support two vendors to examine alternative MKV 
technology concepts. The committee believes there is 
significant technical risk that must be addressed in the MKV 
program and understands the approach of maintaining two vendors 
to reduce technology risk. However, the committee is concerned 
about the financial implications of maintaining two vendors 
indefinitely.
    The committee recommends $254.5 million, a decrease of 
$100.0 million, in PE 63894C for MKV. In addition, within 90 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the committee 
directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees that provides 
criteria and a clear path for down-selecting between vendors as 
the MKV program matures and meets its established knowledge 
points.
            Short-range ballistic missile defense
    The budget request contained $44.8 million in PE 63881C for 
short-range ballistic missile defense or ``David's Sling'' 
program.
    The short-range ballistic missile defense program is being 
jointly designed by the United States and the State of Israel 
to provide an affordable and effective defense against the 
threat from long-range artillery rockets and short-range 
ballistic missiles.
    The committee recommends $54.8 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, in PE 63881C to support the continued 
development of the short-range ballistic missile defense 
program.
            Space Tracking and Surveillance System
    The budget request contained $242.4 million in PE 63893C 
for the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS).
    The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency plans 
to launch two STSS demonstration satellites in November 2008, 
to demonstrate the ability to track ballistic missiles from 
space. The committee is supportive of this effort. The 
committee notes it is premature, however, to begin development 
of a follow-on constellation of satellites before these two 
demonstration satellites have demonstrated any capability to 
track ballistic missile targets.
    The committee recommends $217.4 million, a decrease of 
$25.0 million, in PE 63893C for STSS, and authorizes no funds 
to begin work on an STSS follow-on constellation.
            Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
    The budget request contained $864.8 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.
    For several years, combatant commanders have expressed 
strong support for THAAD. The 2007 Joint Capabilities Mix Study 
II concluded that combatant commanders require nearly twice as 
many THAAD interceptors as the 96 now planned. The committee 
also notes that the Army's original requirement for THAAD 
included 8 fire units and 1,250 interceptors. Under a separate 
title of this Act, the committee has increased funding for 
THAAD procurement.
    In accordance with section 223 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
the committee recommends the transfer of $65.0 million for 
advanced procurement of THAAD Fire Units #3 and #4 from PE 
63881C to title 1.
    The committee recommends $799.8 million, a decrease of 
$65.0 million, in PE 63881C for THAAD.

Blood cell storage

    The committee is aware that the military requires blood-
containing viable platelets necessary for effective hemorrhage 
control. The committee notes that unlike other blood components 
like plasma and red cells, platelets can only be stored at room 
temperature and only for a few days. Currently, the quality of 
platelet concentrates is determined by a subjective visual 
check or by taking random samples directly from the platelet 
storage bag to measure the degree of acidity (pH) of the 
sample, as pH is considered to be a good indicator of platelet 
quality. However, taking a sample breaks the sterility of the 
bag and the respective unit of platelets can no longer be used.
    The committee seeks to ensure that the best medical 
treatment is available for warfighters wounded in combat and 
other military operations. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a study and pilot project on 
technology and methods for improving the shelf-life and 
viability of blood platelet storage. Such a study shall include 
examining methods of closed-loop pH monitoring for platelets. 
The committee directs the Secretary to submit to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services a summary of his findings and recommendations, by 
March 31, 2009.

Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National 
        Defense University

    The budget request contained $34.5 million in PE 65104D8Z 
for technical studies, support, and analysis, but contained no 
funds for analyses for the Center for Technology and National 
Security Policy (CTNSP) at the National Defense University.
    The committee recognizes that CTNSP provides valuable 
support to the Department through the development of a wide 
range of studies and analyses. The committee has also been the 
beneficiary of the critical mass of knowledge and expertise at 
CTNSP, having both received written products such as the 2006 
``Report to Congress on the Information Technology Program'' 
and oral testimony on a range of topics from experts at CTNSP. 
The committee encourages the researchers at CTNSP to continue 
to explore issues of importance to the Department and the 
nation. The synergy created between the academic research and 
operational experience the CTNSP is an asset that provides 
advice to policy makers in shaping national security direction.
    The committee recommends $36.0 million, an increase of $1.5 
million, in PE 65104D8Z for the CNSTP.

Chemical and biological defense basic and applied research and advanced 
        technology development initiative

    The budget request contained $594.8 million for chemical/
biological defense science and technology, including $53.2 
million in PE 61384BP for basic research, $203.7 million in 
applied research, and $337.9 million in advanced technology 
development.
    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.

Chemical/biological defense advanced technology development initiative

    The committee recommends that the projects and technologies 
to be considered for funding under the advanced technology 
development initiative include, but are not limited to the 
following:
          (1) Chemical and biological protective clothing;
          (2) Protective self-decontaminating surface 
        technology;
          (3) Nano porous regenerative filters;
          (4) Rapid bio-detection and early warning systems;
          (5) Antioxidant micronutrient countermeasures;
          (6) Anthrax skin patch vaccine; and
          (7) Wide area surveillance and warning systems.
    The committee recommends $358.9 million in PE 63384BP, an 
increase of $20.0 million for the chemical/biological defense 
advanced technology development initiative.

Chemical/biological defense applied research initiative

    The committee recommends that the projects and technologies 
to be considered for funding under the applied research 
initiative include, but are not limited to the following:
          (1) Self-decontaminating polymers;
          (2) Sample preparation;
          (3) Standoff multispectral imaging detection;
          (4) CBRNE detection sensor network design;
          (5) Multi-agent vaccine development;
          (6) Bio-terror shield for yellow fever, dengue, and 
        West Nile virus;
          (7) Biosurety development and management;
          (8) Enhanced chemical and biological protective 
        clothing;
          (9) Smallpox biodefense therapeutic; and
          (10) Mass decontamination technology.
    The committee recommends $218.7 million in PE 62384BP, an 
increase of $15.0 million for the chemical/biological defense 
applied research initiative.
            Chemical/biological defense basic research initiative
    The committee recommends that the technologies to be 
considered for funding under the basic research initiative 
include, but are not limited to the following:
          (1) X-ray beamline determination of molecular 
        structures;
          (2) Standoff chemical detection;
          (3) Anti-biowarfare medicines; and
          (4) High-speed network for infectious diseases.
    The committee recommends $58.2 million in PE 61384BP, an 
increase of $5.0 million, for the chemical/biological defense 
basic research initiative.

Cyberterror protection expansion for the Department of Defense

    The committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 urged 
the Department of Defense to implement the successful Air Force 
model for enterprise license agreements throughout the 
Department. The committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to report 
back to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act on the steps taken by the Department to 
comply with these recommendations. The report shall include an 
assessment of future compliance plans intended by the 
Department.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

    The committee applauds the overall progress in the defense 
science and technology program, particularly that of the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The 
committee also recognizes that this year marks the 50th 
anniversary for DARPA as a defense agency and notes that DARPA, 
since 1958, has had notable success with performing its 
original role to find and develop advanced technology to 
prevent technological surprise by other nations. The committee 
is pleased with DARPA's current efforts to find and rapidly 
field advanced innovative technologies to meet critical 
operational needs of our forces.
    The committee understands that much of DARPA's success is 
due to several factors including its team of top-notch 
technical experts, a flat organization with greater management 
flexibility, and a rigid performance-based business model. 
Under the performance-based model, the committee understands 
that funds are withheld until the performer passes a 
significant, agreed upon milestone. While this model can give 
the impression of poor obligation rates throughout the year, 
the committee finds that DARPA continually under executes a 
significant portion of its budget each year. For example, with 
two quarters remaining for the obligation of fiscal year 2008 
funds only 14.2 percent has been obligated. This trend 
continues despite a congressional rescission of $144.0 million 
of funds appropriated for fiscal year 2007 and a reduction of 
$129.0 million to the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
    The committee does not believe that additional program 
growth is justified at this time and recommends funding DARPA's 
fiscal year 2009 program at a level consistent with current 
expenditures in the fiscal year 2008 program.
    The committee makes a series of recommendations for general 
reductions in DARPA programs:

62383E--Biological Warfare Defense......................    $-15,000,000
62702E--Tactical Technology.............................     -30,000,000
62715E--Materials and Bio Technology....................     -10,000,000
62716E--Electronics Technology..........................     -15,000,000
63287E--Space Program and Technology....................     -10,000,000
63739E--Advanced Electronics Technology.................     -10,000,000
63760E--Command, Control and Communications Systems.....     -10,000,000

    These recommendations are made without prejudice to the 
particular account identified.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency relocation

    The committee recognizes the unique requirements for the 
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) physical 
location. Among these requirements are an immediate proximity 
to the Pentagon and other extramural research organizations; 
the direct availability of a large cadre of highly qualified 
scientists and engineers; non-governmental technical support 
staff experts and facilities; nearby housing and quality of 
life amenities needed to attract and recruit high-quality 
technical program managers; accessibility that balances force 
protection with the need to be open to new performers who have 
never done business with the Department of Defense or the 
federal government; and access to public transportation and 
airports to facilitate travel of these employees and DARPA's 
partners in research. For these reasons, the 2005 Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission voted unanimously to overturn the 
Secretary of Defense's recommendation to relocate DARPA outside 
of Northern Virginia.
    The committee believes that DARPA's mission could 
potentially be undermined if the relocation fails to meet these 
requirements. Therefore, the committee urges the General 
Services Administration to continue to work with DARPA to 
ensure that the source selection process works best to meet 
DARPA's unique agency requirements. The committee supports the 
Department and the General Services Administration's existing 
plans for DARPA's relocation.

Defense Agencies Initiative sustainment

    Section 1005 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) pertained to the 
financial transformation initiative for the defense agencies. 
This section called for the creation of a Defense Agencies 
Initiative to do two things:
          (1) To eliminate or replace financial management 
        systems that are duplicative, redundant, or fail to 
        comply with financial management standards; and
          (2) To transform budget, finance, and accounting 
        operations of the defense agencies to achieve accurate 
        and reliable financial information for accountability 
        and effective decision making.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct 
an assessment on the Defense Agencies Initiative and submit the 
report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act. This report shall 
offer a sustainment plan for the first phase, or wave one, 
capability being developed under the Initiative. It shall also 
include both an implementation plan for all additional waves 
associated with the overall solution deployment and a funding 
profile and timeline.

Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

    The budget request contained $2.8 million in PE 61114D8Z 
for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research (DEPSCoR).
    The committee notes that projects under DEPSCoR are 
intended to expand research capabilities and opportunities in 
states that traditionally receive the least funding in federal 
support for university research. The committee further notes 
that DEPSCoR was originally authorized by section 257 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1995 (Public 
Law 103-337) to enhance the capabilities of institutions of 
higher education to develop, plan, and execute science and 
engineering research that is competitive under a peer-review 
system for awarding federal research assistance. The committee 
applauds the Department for its sound execution of the program. 
The committee also recognizes the many DEPSCoR contributions in 
support of our national security and for building national 
infrastructure for research education.
    The committee is concerned that despite the success of the 
program, the Department's budget requests for the program has 
significantly declined from the fiscal year 2007 request of 
$9.5 million to $2.8 million in the fiscal year 2009 request. 
The Department informed the committee that no funds will be 
requested for DEPSCoR in fiscal year 2010 and in future year 
budget requests.
    The committee strongly urges the Department to fund 
DEPSCoR, at an adequate level, to continue expanding the 
national research infrastructure. The committee recommends 
$12.8 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 61114D8Z for 
DEPSCoR.

Defense Information System for Security

    The committee applauds the interagency effort between the 
Department of Defense and the intelligence community to reform 
and improve the security clearance process. The Joint Security 
and Suitability Reform Team, utilizing Lean Six Sigma and other 
business process modernization techniques, has made a number of 
suggestions that will revolutionize how the Department, other 
federal agencies, and the intelligence community administer, 
vet, and issue security clearances.
    The committee is aware that this significant revamping of 
the system has necessitated the Defense Information System for 
Security (DISS), which was established under the Defense 
Security Service but transitioned to the Business 
Transformation Agency, to undergo a strategic pause. The 
committee recognizes that this is necessary so that the 
recommendations of this process reform can be better understood 
and translated into requirements for DISS. In addition to its 
ability to enable this change within the Department, the 
committee encourages the strategic alignment of DISS 
capabilities with the information technology needs of the 
federal-wide reform effort.
    The committee recognizes that taking such actions will have 
an impact on the ability of these programs to execute funds in 
a timely fashion. The committee supports any associated pause 
in these programs that may be necessary in order for a solution 
that achieves these goals to be realized.

Department of Defense bandwidth requirements for the future

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the congressional defense committees a report within 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act outlining Department 
bandwidth needs in the near-term (next two years) and the 
longer term (eight years and beyond). The report shall detail 
the Department's plan for addressing increasing demands, 
including:
          (1) Current data transport capabilities (including 
        terrestrial cable, as well as military and commercial 
        satellite communications, both protected and 
        unprotected) and current demands;
          (2) Future planned data transport capabilities 
        (including terrestrial cable, as well as military and 
        commercial satellite communications, both protected and 
        unprotected) and projected demands;
          (3) Synchronization of future planned data transport 
        capabilities to bandwidth needs for future systems 
        (such as the Future Combat System, Naval Networking 
        Environment, etc.); and
          (4) Proposed mitigation strategies should future 
        planned data transport capabilities not become 
        available when scheduled.
    The committee is concerned that the Department lacks an 
organization to conduct comprehensive assessments and trades of 
communications bandwidth requirements, and capabilities and 
acquisition strategies to meet those requirements. Therefore, 
the committee recommends the Department consider identifying or 
creating an organization responsible for defense-wide bandwidth 
management and synchronization with the following activities:
          (1) Develop a near-, mid-, and far-term defense-wide 
        communications architecture;
          (2) Conduct strategic communications bandwidth 
        analysis with requirements, capability, schedule, and 
        cost trade studies;
          (3) Provide bandwidth analysis on whether future 
        acquisitions of systems and platforms are properly 
        scoped into the current and planned communications 
        architecture; and
          (4) Provide the milestone decision authority with 
        acquisition recommendations based on whether the 
        proposed capability can be supported and integrated 
        into the communications architecture.

Energy technology investment roadmap

    The committee is aware that a recent Defense Science Board 
(DSB) task force on Department of Defense Energy Strategy 
recommended that the Department increase investments in energy 
efficient and alternative energy technologies, and maintain a 
level of funding commensurate with operational and financial 
value. A separate study released in April 2007 and commissioned 
by the Office of Force Transformation and Resources of the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, found that 
numerous federal and commercial energy research and development 
initiatives exist but lack coordination and metrics for 
integration with an energy-efficient future operational 
concept.
    The committee believes the Department should embrace a more 
coordinated and energy-efficient future operational concept. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
prepare an energy technology investment roadmap. The roadmap 
shall consider, among other things, the DSB recommendations for 
accelerated development of those technologies for blended wing 
body aircraft, variable speed tilt rotor vertical lift, 
lightweight composite `blast-bucket' tactical vehicles, 
advanced electro-mechanical actuators, semi-rigid lighter-than-
air high-altitude lifting bodies, advanced micro-generators, 
biomimetic design for platform components and very high 
efficiency electronics for soldier system and other combat 
systems applications. The roadmap shall also consider the DSB 
recommendation to support mobile, in-theater fuel production 
processes with operational applications. Finally, the roadmap 
shall make recommendations to ensure that all energy technology 
investments across the services are prioritized, coordinated, 
and are not duplicative of other efforts with the Department, 
other federal agencies, or the commercial sector.
    The Secretary shall submit the energy technology investment 
roadmap to the congressional defense committees by September 1, 
2009.

Foliage penetration capability

    The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 63122D8Z 
for combating terrorism technology support, but contained no 
funds for the development, demonstration, or transition of 
foliage penetrating technology.
    The committee notes that the ability to see through mature 
jungle canopy to identify and locate structures associated with 
terrorism and other high-value targets requires advanced 
foliage penetration (FOPEN) capability. The committee is aware 
of the Department's recent successes with demonstrating various 
FOPEN capabilities, but is concerned about the current funding 
levels to adequately support continued development of FOPEN 
technology and transition to operational use. The committee 
notes that our armed forces and U.S. civilians are engaged 
globally and must have the capability to operate in a wide 
range of environmental conditions, including in regions with 
dense foliage. The committee is concerned that the combatant 
commands lack the full-spectrum intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance capability they need to adequately carry out 
their missions. The committee urges the Department to make 
rapid transition of FOPEN technology a high priority.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63122D8Z for the continued development, demonstration, and 
rapid transition of promising foliage penetration technology.
    The committee encourages the Director, Rapid Reaction 
Technology Office, within the office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, within 90 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, to brief the 
congressional defense committees on the Department's current 
capability and plans to develop, procure, and deploy FOPEN 
systems. The brief should address the results of any tests of 
FOPEN systems, to include when, where, and type of system 
tested; the capability of the sensor technology, processing 
algorithms, and analytical suite; the transitional or 
operational funding identified and secured for the FOPEN 
system; and any future testing and acquisition planning and 
associated costs.

Green information technology standards

    The committee is aware of an effort within the Pentagon to 
reduce the energy and environmental impact of the Department of 
Defense information technology (IT) enterprise. IT systems, 
including all of the desktop computing, servers, routers, and 
associated equipment consume significant quantities of power.
    The committee supports the goals of this ``green IT'' 
initiative, sponsored by the office of the Pentagon Chief 
Information Officer (CIO), to work within existing budgets and 
authorities to adopt smart business practices that will help 
reduce the energy consumption of IT resources. In addition, 
this effort has the opportunity to reclaim physical space that 
can be used for other purposes.
    The committee encourages the Pentagon CIO to maintain 
robust metrics on power, cost, and space savings made through 
this effort and to socialize the benefits of this program so 
that it might be adopted more broadly throughout the 
Department, as well as the rest of the federal government.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving 
        Institutions

    The budget request contained $15.2 million in PE 62228D8Z 
for the Historically Black College and Universities and 
Minority Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI) infrastructure support 
program.
    The committee is concerned about the limited effort that 
the Department of Defense has undertaken in developing, 
funding, and expanding the HBCU/MI program. Specifically, the 
budget request for this program has not increased since the 
inception of the program under the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510). 
The committee believes that inadequate funding could have 
direct and indirect effects in ensuring future generations of 
minority students are trained to meet the challenges in 
developing future defense capabilities.
    As noted elsewhere in this title, the committee supports 
the Department's commitment to reshape its science and 
technology approach for developing non-kinetic capabilities to 
enable mission success in irregular warfare environments. These 
capabilities include elements of net-centric operations, 
behavioral and social sciences, information assurance, modeling 
and simulation, and bio-inspired research. The committee 
believes that the minority serving institutions have strong 
research capabilities in these areas and urges the Department 
to include the HBCU/MI program as part of this important 
reshaping.
    The committee remains committed to ensuring that the 
Department adequately supports the training and development of 
minority students who are an increasing part of the foundation 
that the future of our national security rests upon. The 
committee recognizes the critical need of the Department to 
take the necessary steps to enhance the HBCU/MI and other 
related programs across the Department. Section 232 in this Act 
requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out an assessment of 
the capability of minority serving institutions to participate 
in research, development, test and evaluation activities for 
the Department. To strengthen the HBCU/MI program, the 
committee urges the Department to explore other proven 
methodologies, such as creating centers-of-excellence and 
expanding the Mentor Protege program to include minority 
serving institutions.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
62228D8Z for the enhancement of the HBCU/MI infrastructure 
support program. The committee encourages the Department, in 
its future defense budget submissions, to include an increase 
to the HBCU/MI program to, at a minimum, reflect the rate of 
inflation.

Human, social, and cultural behavioral modeling advanced development

    The budget request contained $9.4 million in PE 63670D8Z 
and $6.0 million in PE 64670D8Z for human, social, cultural, 
and behavior (HSCB) modeling advanced development.
    The committee notes that today's military forces are 
involved in a growing number of complex missions from 
counterinsurgency to security and stability operations. These 
missions are best served by a security force that understands 
and appreciates the individual, tribal, cultural, ethnic, 
religious, social, economic, and other aspects of the human 
terrain. The committee supports the Department's effort to 
reshape their approach to research, training, and doctrine to 
adapt to the current irregular warfare environment. The 
Department's creation and deployment of Human Terrain Teams 
(HTT) that employ cultural awareness and analysis practices 
notes one approach toward adapting to complex military 
operations.
    In title XV of this Act, the committee notes the 
contributions of the prototype HTTs currently supporting 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and believes that sound 
research and resulting tools are key technology enablers for 
success of these teams now and in the future.
    The committee recommends $13.4 million, an increase of $4.0 
million, in PE 63670D8Z and $8.0 million, an increase of $2.0 
million, in PE 64670D8Z for the continued development, 
demonstration and rapid transition of key technologies 
supporting human terrain understanding and forecasting to 
include, Mapping the Human Terrain Joint Capability Technology 
Demonstration and the Conflict Modeling, Planning and Outcome 
Experimentation Program.

Human, social, and cultural behavior modeling research

    The committee supports efforts to further human, social, 
and cultural behavioral (HSCB) modeling research activities, 
but believes greater planning coordination and concept 
development is necessary to yield a productive program.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish a Department 
of Defense User Community Advisory Group (UCAG) to provide 
input to the Department on the utility of existing HSCB 
research efforts, to include determining the research direction 
for future programs in this area. Advisory group members shall 
include researchers from the scientific and engineering world 
and members from operational disciplines, such as special 
operations, intelligence, and provincial reconstruction team 
specialists. The advisory group shall not only provide input on 
future research directions, but shall also be used as a peer 
review group to provide feedback on existing HSCB programs 
managed by the services and agencies.
    The committee further directs the Under Secretary for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit to the 
congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act a report outlining the charter, 
functions, and proposed membership of this group.

Human systems integration

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) contains a provision requiring the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a single office to 
coordinate the planning, management, and expectation of human 
systems integration (HSI) activities throughout all DOD 
acquisition programs. The provision also requires the 
Department to identify and recommend resource requirements for 
all HSI activities.
    The committee continues to support HSI as an affordability 
initiative for reducing overall life cycle costs of weapon 
systems and improving training regimes of military personnel. 
As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 106-616) 
accompanying the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001, significant savings in defense 
systems ownership costs are possible with wisely targeted 
science and technology investments. The committee views HSI as 
an integral part of this approach, continues to support these 
affordability efforts, and urges the Department to commit 
further to HSI activities.
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to develop a 
comprehensive plan for funding and implementing HSI through all 
phases of science, research, and acquisition. This plan shall 
include the development of policy, requirements, and 
recommendations on methods for incorporating HSI concerns 
throughout all phases of systems acquisition. The committee 
also expects the plan to include a specific method for 
determining and tracking the implementation of HSI activities 
to ensure adherence with stated Department goals and policy 
objectives. The committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to submit the 
report by March 15, 2009 to the congressional defense 
committees.

Increase in basic research

    The committee applauds the Department's increased 
investment in basic research as noted in the fiscal year 2009 
budget request. The committee also recognizes that in a 
difficult budget environment, this request represents a 2 
percent increase over the appropriated amount for fiscal year 
2008 and a 16 percent increase in real terms over the 
Department's fiscal year 2008 request for basic research. The 
committee supports this increase and reminds the Department 
that the committee noted strong concerns in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) over the continued decline in Department of Defense basic 
research budgets and its impact to national security and our 
future science and engineering workforce. The committee 
strongly urges the Department to sustain this increase.

Independent verification and validation for financial management 
        systems

    The committee believes that the financial management goal 
of the Department of Defense should be to provide quality, high 
confidence, and real-time financial data consistent with 
national security objectives. The committee also believes that 
efforts to improve the consistency, quality, and timeliness of 
financial data will improve the stewardship of government funds 
and improve overall decision making. The committee believes 
such transparency has the potential to result in significant 
cost savings over time.
    The committee understands that a key aspect of achieving 
this vision will be to clearly mandate the roles and 
responsibilities for independent verification and validation 
(IVV) for financial data.
    As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to draft and provide the congressional defense committees a 
Department of Defense directive articulating the roles and 
responsibilities for IVV for the financial management process. 
The committee further directs delivery of the directive within 
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Information technology clearinghouse

    The budget request contained $5.3 million in PE 33169D8Z 
for information technology (IT) rapid acquisition, but 
contained no funds for the development of the clearinghouse for 
rapid identification and dissemination of commercial 
information technologies.
    As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008, the committee remains concerned that the Department 
of Defense's budgeting and acquisition processes continue to 
struggle to keep pace with the IT innovation cycle. As a result 
of legislative action by the committee, the Department 
established a clearinghouse for rapid identification and 
dissemination of commercial information technologies that 
leveraged technology being developed in parallel under the 
emerging technology demonstration. Both of these programs are 
showing promising results, and the committee supports continued 
development in order to ensure the Department can provide the 
best, most modern IT systems to meet its mission requirements.
    The committee recommends $12.3 million, an increase of $7.0 
million, in PE 33169D8Z for the development of the 
clearinghouse for rapid identification and dissemination of 
commercial information technologies.

K-12 computer sciences and mathematics education

    The budget request contained $195.6 million in PE 61101E 
for basic research in the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, including $2.0 million for the Computer Futures 
program. The committee notes that the Computer Futures program 
supports kindergarten through 12th grade educational programs 
to develop and foster students of computer science and 
mathematics at an early age in order to create a pipeline to 
support the nation's future scientific and engineering needs in 
these areas.
    The committee is concerned about reports such as the 
National Academy of Science study ``Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm'' which indicate that the United States may not be 
producing sufficient numbers of scientists and engineers (S&E) 
to meet our future technology needs. The committee believes 
that if the nation is unable to provide for its demands in 
S&Es, it will have severe detrimental effects on the defense 
sector and the broader economic health of the nation. Facing a 
similar challenge 50 years ago, President Eisenhower increased 
investments in science and mathematics education that continue 
to pay dividends today. In that same spirit, Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency's Computer Futures program is an 
investment in the nation's intellectual capital that the 
committee believes will reap significant rewards in the future.
    The committee recommends $195.6 million, an increase of 
$1.0 million, in PE 61101E for Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency's Computer Futures program to create and 
validate additional curriculum covering new topics, and to 
expand the program into new school systems.

Lean Six Sigma process analysis within the Office of Undersecretary of 
        Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics

    The committee approves of the Department's designation of a 
process improvement officer (PIO) tasked with applying Lean Six 
Sigma process improvement techniques to the business practices 
of the Department. The committee believes such techniques must 
be utilized on a continuous basis to ensure that the Department 
does not become trapped by process, rather than having 
processes adapt over time to changing realities. The committee 
recommends that the Department's PIO examine the processes for 
rapid acquisition activities that have been established since 
the initiation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 
determine if there are lessons learned from this analysis that 
might be integrated into the Department's main acquisition 
process.

Managing and extending Department of Defense asset lifecycles

    The budget request contained $5.1 million in PE 64016D8Z 
for Department of Defense (DOD) corrosion programs, but 
contained no funds for the managing and extending DOD asset 
lifecycles (MEDAL) initiative.
    Aging assets within the Department require DOD planners to 
aggressively pursue technologies and innovative concepts to 
maintain and improve mission capability rates and reduce life-
cycle costs. The MEDAL initiative would provide a comprehensive 
enterprise review of investment in technologies such as asset 
health and logistics processes, condition-based maintenance 
opportunities, material aging research, and sustainment and 
remanufacturing education. It will identify savings, reduce 
costs, and increase systems availability to meet mission 
requirements.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
64016D8Z for the MEDAL initiative.

Nanocrystal source display

    The budget request contained $177.0 million in PE 61102A 
for defense research sciences, containing $7.2 million for 
advanced sensors research supporting the development of 
flexible displays.
    The committee notes that flexible display technology 
developed at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) is being 
applied to significantly improve the compact, ruggedized 
displays for the Army's future force. The committee notes that 
much of the research laboratory's success with advancing 
flexible display technology is attributed to their effort to 
integrate strategically important technologies from industry, 
academia, and government in the development of the displays. 
The committee encourages ARL, using a similar approach, to 
begin developing a small-scale manufacturing capability for 
flexible displays.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 
61102A to continue the development and small-scale 
manufacturing of flexible display technology.

Naval Postgraduate School

    The committee notes the strong contribution made by the 
Naval Postgraduate School in conducting research programs 
relevant to the Navy and the Department of Defense. The 
committee strongly supports these research initiatives and 
understands them to be consistent with the principles and 
policies of other Department of Defense research programs such 
as the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation 
scholarship for service program.

Open source software systems

    The committee is concerned by the rising costs and 
decreasing security associated with software development for 
information technology (IT) systems. These rising costs are 
linked to the increasing complexity of software, which has also 
resulted in increasing numbers of system vulnerabilities that 
might be exploited by malicious hackers and potential 
adversaries. While the Administration has put forth a plan to 
increase cybersecurity within the larger enterprise of federal 
IT systems, a focus and assessment of fundamental software 
engineering practices is not apparent.
    Open source software (OSS) is a set of practices on how to 
write software, based on the open availability and right to use 
software code. This process provides greater rigor in the 
software development process by making it available to a 
diverse community of programmers for review, testing, and 
improvement. The Linux operation system and Internet Protocol 
internet addressing system are examples of high quality 
products developed within the business sector using the OSS 
standard.
    The committee encourages the Department to rely more 
broadly on OSS and establish it as a standard for intra-
Department software development. The committee acknowledges the 
availability of proprietary software and encourages its 
development and acquisition as necessary and appropriate. The 
committee believes, however, the wide-spread implementation of 
an OSS standard will not only lead to more secure software, but 
will also foster broader competition by minimizing traditional 
constraints imposed by an over-reliance on proprietary software 
systems.

Post-detonation nuclear forensics

    The budget request contained $211.1 million in PE 62718BR 
for weapons of mass destruction defeat technologies.
    The committee believes that a rapid global nuclear 
forensics capability is critical to support attribution and 
response following a nuclear detonation and will serve as a 
deterrent to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorist attacks. 
The committee is aware that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 
(DTRA) would play an essential role in the time-critical 
attribution process and collection of radioactive material 
samples for forensics analysis. According to a recent study 
entitled ``Nuclear Forensics: Role, State of the Art, and 
Program Needs'' by the American Association for the Advancement 
of Science and the American Physical Society, ``specialized 
field-deployable equipment that could save days in making 
results available to decision makers is either not available or 
incompletely tested.'' The study identifies a particular need 
for automated, field-deployable instrumentation that can 
conduct rapid and accurate sample analysis. The committee is 
aware that DTRA has identified several technologies that could 
help meet this need as unfunded requirements.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
62718BR for accelerated research and development of post-
detonation nuclear forensics technologies.

Pre-Key Decision Point-B system vulnerability assessment

    Recognizing the increased vulnerability of the United 
States' national security space systems that was highlighted by 
the Chinese test of a direct ascent anti-satellite weapon on 
January 11, 2007, the committee directs the Department of 
Defense to prepare a system vulnerability assessment for each 
new or revised space system prior to Key Decision Point-B. The 
vulnerability assessment should be prepared by an organization 
independent of the system program office.
    The committee further directs the Secretary to report to 
the congressional defense committees on the Department's 
actions to integrate vulnerability assessments into the 
acquisition process by March 31, 2009.

Printed circuit board technology

    The committee remains concerned with sustaining a robust 
domestic printed circuit board (PrCB) manufacturing capability 
as well as ensuring access to new PrCB technology. The 
committee notes the Report on Department of Defense 
Implementation of the National Research Council Committee on 
Manufacturing Trends in Printed Circuit Technology 
Recommendations and supports the suggestion to establish an 
executive agent to carry out the recommended actions of the 
Council. The committee supports this recommendation and 
strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to establish an 
executive agent for PrCB technology.
    The committee believes the executive agent should be 
responsible for:
          (1) Monitoring the manufacturing materials, 
        processes, and component vulnerabilities for PrCBs;
          (2) Development of a PrCB Technology Roadmap;
          (3) Evaluation or recapitalization and investment 
        requirements of Department of Defense PrCB facilities;
          (4) Development of funding strategies;
          (5) Advocacy for continuing PrCB domain knowledge, 
        expertise, and organic PrCB capabilities; and
          (6) Development of methods to assure the availability 
        of needed technical data.
    The committee also notes that the Report, which was 
submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House 
Committee on Armed Services on March 3, 2008, suggested 
establishing the executive agent oversight by the Navy through 
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division. The committee 
strongly supports this recommendation. The committee notes, 
however, that the Report did not include estimated 
implementation funding and timelines, as requested by the 
conference report accompanying the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
and understands that preliminary funding estimates were 
developed by the Department. The committee recommends that the 
Department provide such funding as is necessary to implement 
the recommendations of the Report in the fiscal year 2010 
budget request and in future years.

Review of cost reimbursements on defense research grants and contracts

    The committee strongly supports federally-sponsored 
research and believes the relationship between the Department 
of Defense (DOD), universities, and other research institutions 
depends on each party bearing a fair share of the costs of 
conducting research. The committee believes that such 
partnerships should also rely on deliberate policies and 
procedures to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well used and 
that research institutions and scientists are adequately 
reimbursed for the costs of the research performed.
    The committee is obligated to ensure that taxpayer dollars 
are properly executed and that federal policies and procedures 
governing payments and reimbursements for research costs are 
sound. The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General 
to conduct a review of the existing Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) policies, practices, and procedures, as well as 
those included in the federal acquisition regulations. At a 
minimum, this report shall:
          (1) Describe the OMB rules and regulations that guide 
        research institution's facilities and administration 
        (F&A) cost reimbursements on DOD research grants and 
        contracts;
          (2) Describe and assess the F&A costs that are 
        reimbursable under current rules and explain if similar 
        payments for such costs are made to support industry 
        and federal laboratories that conduct research and 
        development research on behalf of the government;
          (3) Assess the extent to which the rules for 
        reimbursement of F&A costs are different for the 
        Department of Defense than for other federal agencies;
          (4) Assess trends in negotiated F&A rates and 
        effective (based on actual reimbursement) F&A rates for 
        universities that receive DOD extramural research 
        grants and contracts;
          (5) Assess the impact to F&A costs as a result of 
        increased federal regulations such as environmental, 
        security, and visa issues, assess trends in actual 
        payments by the Department of Defense for direct and 
        indirect costs on DOD extramural research grants;
          (6) Document current procedures DOD uses to ensure 
        compliance with OMB guidance in reimbursing F&A costs; 
        and
          (7) Report on the methodology used by the government 
        entities responsible for determining F&A rates--the 
        Department of Health and Human Services, Division of 
        Cost Allocation, and the Department of Defense, Office 
        of Naval Research--to review, audit, negotiate, and 
        ensure that F&A rates are fair and equitable to the 
        federal government.
    The report shall be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees within 12 months after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

Science and technology for strategic communication

    The budget request contained $20.7 million in PE 65799D8Z 
for the Force Transformation Directorate, but contained no 
funds for science and technology (S&T) to support the 
Department's strategic communication mission.
    The committee supports the findings of the recent Defense 
Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Strategic Communication, as 
well as of the National Science and Technology Council report, 
``Research and Development Challenges for Regional Stability 
and Capacity Building.'' The committee believes that the 
Department should devote more S&T effort to support this 
mission. The Department already has underway a variety of 
programs that could be used to support the operational needs of 
the strategic communication and public diplomacy community. The 
committee believes the Department should leverage these efforts 
to designate an S&T thrust area for strategic communication and 
focus on critical S&T opportunities, such as those identified 
by the DSB.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees within 90 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act. This report shall 
describe current S&T efforts within the Department, services, 
and agencies that could be linked together to form the basis of 
a program supporting these needs, including an analysis of gaps 
not addressed by current programs.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $8.0 million 
in PE 65799D8Z for the Force Transformation Directorate.

Social science research within the Department of Defense

    As noted elsewhere in this title, the committee is 
encouraged by the effort within office of the Director for 
Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) to place an increasing 
focus on the human, social, and cultural behavior (HSCB) 
elements of research. The committee is further encouraged by a 
corresponding emphasis within the science and technology (S&T) 
programs of the respective services.
    The committee has also been encouraged by the success of 
integrating social science expertise into Department of Defense 
operations via the Human Terrain Teams (HTT), which provide 
culturally relevant advice to military decision makers. As has 
been pointed out in recent testimony before the committee, 
these teams provide value added to traditional military 
operational planning and have been instrumental in saving lives 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The 
committee believes that more programs in the future should be 
informed by social science research.
    Despite this recent emphasis on efforts such as HSCB and 
the deployment of HTTs, the committee is concerned about the 
dearth of social scientists within the Department's S&T 
community and especially within program management leadership 
positions. The committee believes the Department should take 
steps to leverage social scientist expertise existing within 
other parts of the federal government, such as the National 
Science Foundation.

Sustainment of Business Transformation Agency programs

    The committee notes that the Business Transformation Agency 
was established in order to improve the efficiency of 
Department of Defense business process by accelerating the 
development and deployment of transformational capabilities. 
The committee understands that a key element of that process 
has been to transition programs of record to the Business 
Transformation Agency for management oversight, but the 
committee is concerned that there is no apparent transition 
strategy to move these capabilities to other organizations that 
might be better positioned to maintain and sustain these 
efforts once mature.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
report on a transition strategy for programs managed by the 
Business Transformation Agency for the sustainment of systems 
that have reached a defined level of maturity. This report 
shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees 
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. This 
transition strategy shall include:
          (1) An evaluation process for determining the 
        maturity of a program;
          (2) Exit criteria defining at what point a program 
        has reached a maturity level to transition out of the 
        Business Transformation Agency for sustainment 
        purposes;
          (3) A process defining how the Business 
        Transformation Agency will continue to be involved in 
        these mature programs in order to help guide them as 
        they need to go through update cycles; and
          (4) A transition path, including transition partners, 
        for all of the programs currently being managed by the 
        Business Transformation Agency.

Technology to improve future spectrum management usage

    The committee is concerned that Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom have exposed a looming challenge 
related to the availability of usable spectrum for defense 
applications. The proliferation of electronic devices that 
utilize radio frequency (RF) spectrum to communicate is a 
function of the information revolution, and is, in large part, 
driving the Department's development and employment of network-
centric operations. The downside of this proliferation is that 
it places increasing demands on a finite resource made scarcer 
by the auctioning of spectrum for commercial applications, and 
the further competition with commercial systems like cellular 
phones and wireless computing networks.
    The committee believes that technological solutions exist 
that can alleviate these concerns. In one example, the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency has demonstrated the 
applicability of dynamic spectrum access technologies in its 
neXt Generation (XG) communications program. The XG program 
demonstrated the ability to utilize portions of the spectrum 
that are currently being unused, and to adapt to changing 
conditions within the RF spectrum. Technology and concepts 
developed under the XG program are already being adopted into 
current military radio programs, and are being explored further 
for adoption to networking applications.
    The committee urges the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency to conduct an assessment of the state-of-the-art of 
technologies that can be applied to improve our access to 
available spectrum in the near-term, as well as future research 
directions. This assessment should also examine existing 
regulatory barriers that might impede the development or 
deployment of such technologies.

Transformational Medical Technology Initiative

    The budget request contained $337.9 million in PE 63384BP 
for chemical and biological defense advanced technology 
development, including $217.3 million for the Transformation 
Medical Technology Initiative.
    The committee commends the Department of Defense's recent 
progress toward developing broad-spectrum medical 
countermeasures and notes that after just two-and-a-half years 
of development, the Department expects to file for six 
investigational new drug (IND) applications and one new drug 
application with the Food and Drug Administration in fiscal 
year 2009.
    The fiscal year 2009 budget request marks an increase of 
$157.0 million, or 260 percent, over amounts provided in fiscal 
year 2008. The committee is aware that IND filings represent a 
move toward Phase I clinical trials and consequently requires a 
significant funding increase to support this stage of 
development. The committee, however, is concerned that the 2009 
budget request is excessive given the unlikelihood that all six 
anticipated INDs will be ultimately filed by the Department and 
approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
    The committee recommends $167.3 million for the 
Transformational Medical Technology Initiative, a decrease of 
$50.0 million in the 2009 request or a 177 percent increase 
over the fiscal year 2008 level.

Wounded Warriors as information technology, scientific, and engineering 
        specialists

    The committee recognizes the improvements the Department of 
Defense has made to the care and management of wounded service 
members, and understands that the process is ongoing with more 
improvements yet to be implemented. These improvements have 
resulted in increased survival rates and improved quality of 
life for many wounded warriors by lessening the impact of 
disability through the application of new technologies and 
treatments.
    The committee continues to hear from wounded service 
members regarding their desire to continue military service by 
leveraging their knowledge and experience, even if it means 
entering into new mission specialties. The committee believes 
that the military cannot afford to lose such devoted personnel 
with years of vital military operational experience, and more 
years to give. As such, the committee believes that wounded 
service members would be excellent candidates to support 
information technology, scientific, or engineering activities. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
feasibility of identifying and providing education and training 
to selected wounded service members to continue their military 
service as information technology, scientific, or engineering 
specialists and submit a report with the findings of the study 
to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

                         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 2009.

         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 2009.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations


  Section 211--Additional Determinations to be Made as Part of Future 
                    Combat Systems Milestone Review

    This section would amend section 214 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) by adding additional determinations to be made by the 
Secretary of Defense during the Future Combat Systems program 
review.

 Section 212--Analysis of Future Combat Systems Communications Network 
                              and Software

    This section would require the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense, Networks and Information Integration, to conduct an 
independent study and report to the congressional defense 
committees by July 1, 2009, on possible vulnerabilities of the 
Future Combat Systems (FCS) communications network. The purpose 
of this study is to inform the review of the FCS program 
mandated by section 214 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364).

   Section 213--Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicle Selected 
                          Acquisition Reports

    This section would require the Secretary of the Army to 
submit to the congressional defense committees selected 
acquisition reports as defined in section 2432(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, on each of the eight Future Combat Systems 
manned ground vehicle variants. The reports are required by 
February 15 of each year from 2009 to 2015.

Section 214--Separate Procurement and Research, Development, Test, and 
  Evaluation Line Items and Program Elements for Sky Warrior Unmanned 
                         Aerial Systems Project

    This section would require establishment of a program 
element for the Army's ``Sky Warrior'' Unmanned Aerial System 
program.

  Section 215--Restriction on Obligations of Funds for the Warfighter 
                 Information Network--Tactical Program

    This section would restrict obligation of eighty percent of 
research and development funds authorized for appropriation for 
the Warfighter Information Network--Tactical, Increment 3 
program until 15 days after receipt by the congressional 
defense committees of certification from the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics that the 
program has an approved acquisition program baseline, a new 
independent cost estimate is complete, and the Director, 
Defense Research and Engineering has completed a technology 
readiness assessment.

  Section 216--Limitation on Source of Funds for Certain Joint Cargo 
                         Aircraft Expenditures

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from 
funding initial spares, support equipment, training simulators, 
post production modifications, and system engineering and 
management items through the Operations and Maintenance, Army 
appropriation account.

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs


     Section 221--Independent Study of Boost Phase Missile Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into 
an agreement with a Federally Funded Research and Development 
Center to conduct an independent assessment examining the costs 
and benefits of missile defense systems designed to intercept 
ballistic missiles in their boost phase.
    This study would examine the operational capabilities of 
the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs 
to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic 
missile threats to the deployed forces of the United States and 
its friends and allies from rogue states; and to defend the 
territory of the United States against limited ballistic 
missile attack.

   Section 222--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Procurement, 
       Construction, and Deployment of Missile Defenses in Europe

    This section would limit the availability of funds 
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense in 
this and subsequent acts from being obligated or expended for 
site activation or construction of Ground-based Midcourse 
Defense interceptors and associated radars in Europe until 
certain conditions are met.
    This section would also limit the availability of funds for 
the acquisition or deployment of operational missiles for the 
proposed European deployment until the Secretary of Defense 
certifies that the two-stage interceptor proposed for European 
deployment has demonstrated, through successful, operationally 
realistic testing, a high probability of operational 
effectiveness.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


Section 231--Oversight of Testing of Personnel Protective Equipment by 
               Director, Operational Test and Evaluation

    This section would clarify the authorities of the Director, 
Operational Test & Evaluation with respect to personnel 
protective equipment by repealing the authority to provide 
guidance and consultation to the Secretary of Defense for force 
protection equipment and adding authority for the Secretary, or 
his designee, to designate an item of personnel protective 
equipment as a covered system for the purposes of survivability 
testing under section 2366 of title 10, United States Code. The 
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation currently has the 
authority to monitor and review testing conducted under the 
authority of section 2366. This section would also require, in 
the event that personnel protective equipment is fielded for 
operational use prior to the completion of survivability 
testing or a decision to proceed beyond low rate initial 
production, the Director to submit the required report on 
survivability testing to the Secretary of Defense and the 
congressional defense committees as soon as practicable.
    The committee intends to clarify the Secretary's 
authorities to direct his principal advisor on operational test 
and evaluation and live-fire testing, Director, Operational 
Test and Evaluation, to monitor and review survivability test 
data for selected equipment in order to promote greater use of 
consistent, defensible test standards and, through the 
establishment of such standards, accelerate the testing of 
personnel protective equipment. Likewise, as threats to our 
warfighters continue to evolve, the committee urges the 
Secretary to make use of all appropriate acquisition 
authorities to ensure urgent operational needs are fulfilled 
without undue delay, including, if circumstances warrant the 
prudent use of waivers to field personnel protective equipment 
prior to the completion of survivability testing if substantial 
evidence exists that such equipment would provide greater 
levels of protection. If the current acquisition authorities 
are not sufficient to ensure urgent operational needs are met, 
the Secretary shall notify the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 45 
days as to why.

    Section 232--Assessment of the Historically Black Colleges and 
         Universities and Minority Serving Institutions Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out an assessment of the capability of minority serving 
institutions to participate in research, development, test and 
evaluation (RDT&E) programs for the Department of Defense 
(DOD). The report, to be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees within 12 months after the date of enactment of this 
Act, shall describe and assess the current activities within 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, military departments, 
and defense agencies intended to increase opportunities for 
these institutions to participate in and benefit from DOD RDT&E 
programs. Matters such as metrics, lessons learned, capability 
gaps, and other areas deemed appropriate by the Secretary 
should be addressed. The report should also include, as 
directed by Executive Order 13256, the Department's effort to 
establish an annual plan with clear goals for how it intends to 
increase the capacity of historically black colleges and 
universities to compete effectively for DOD grants, contracts, 
or cooperative agreements.

 Section 233--Technology-Neutral Information Technology Guidelines and 
  Standards to Support Fully Interoperable Electronic Personal Health 
 Information for the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans 
                                Affairs

    This section would require the Director of the Department 
of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Program 
Office to report within 12 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act on the development of information technology 
infrastructure guidelines and standards for use by the 
Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) to 
enable fully interoperable electronic personal health 
information.
    For more than 15 years, the committee has been urging the 
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs to 
develop this capability. The committee believes that a 
standards-based approach is a vital prerequisite to having a 
capability to generate, maintain, and seamlessly update 
electronic health records, regardless of which department is 
treating the service person. With the growing number of wounded 
warriors entering the DOD and VA medical systems, the need for 
this capability is imperative in order to prevent the health 
system from becoming overwhelmed.

Section 234--Repeal of Requirement for Technology Transition Initiative

    This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to assess the 
feasibility of consolidating technology transition accounts 
into a unified effort managed by a senior official of the 
Department of Defense. This section would repeal certain 
subsections of section 2359a title 10, United States Code, 
which required the Secretary of Defense to carry out the 
Technology Transition Initiative.
    The committee believes that effective technology transition 
remains vital for making the right technology available to the 
warfighter as quickly as possible and at the lowest cost. The 
Government Accountability Office notes that a number of 
commercial best practices, such as strategic planning at the 
corporate level, are good enablers for technology transition. 
The Government Accountability Office has observed that despite 
a number of Department of Defense initiatives aimed at 
technology transition, the reach of these initiatives is 
limited and there is no unified, corporate approach to using 
them. The Government Accountability Office also states that the 
Department's approach to funding transition is flawed and that 
multiple, small funding sources for specific transition 
activities offer a piecemeal solution to a more systemic 
problem.

                  Section 235--Trusted Defense Systems

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
assess the vulnerabilities in the supply chain for certain 
acquisition programs' information processing systems. This 
section would further require the assessment to identify the 
appropriate lead for the development of a strategy to ensure 
trust in the supply chain for certain acquisition programs. 
Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
implement an interim policy requiring certain Department of 
Defense (DOD) major systems to utilize a trusted source to 
design, prototype, and fabricate integrated circuits.
    The committee notes that the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
approved a Defense Trusted Integrated Circuits Strategy on 
October 10, 2003. Further, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration 
jointly issued interim guidance on trusted suppliers for 
application-specific integrated circuits on January 27, 2004. 
The Under Secretary's interim guidance referenced policy that 
was in development to require certain trusted systems to employ 
on trusted foundry services. The interim guidance provided 
specific examples of ``Top DOD Candidate Programs for Trusted 
Foundry.'' Nevertheless, the committee understands that after 
more than four years in coordination within the Department, the 
policy referenced in the Under Secretary and Assistant 
Secretary's memo remains in draft form. Moreover, only 1 
program out of the 14 identified as top candidates for trusted 
foundry services, has utilized the foundry funded by the 
Department of Defense and the National Security Agency. While 
the use of trusted microcircuits is only a single step in 
ensuring the warfighter has trusted systems, the committee 
strongly encourages the Department to take greater advantage of 
trusted foundries for integrated circuits as an iterative step 
and to potentially foster greater industrial interest and 
competition.
    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit, within 12 months after the date of enactment of this 
Act, a report to the congressional defense committees on the 
vulnerability assessment and strategy.

 Section 236--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Enhanced AN/TPQ-36 
               Radar System Pending Submission of Report

    This section would limit the amount of funds provided to 
the program until the Secretary of the Army provides the 
congressional defense committees with a plan to rapidly 
transition the Counter-Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars (C-RAM) 
program to a program of record.
    The committee notes the remarkable and unprecedented 
success of C-RAM systems in protecting a limited number of 
forward operating bases in the Republic of Iraq. According to 
commanders in the field, C-RAM is a force multiplier that is 
saving lives. The committee believes that lessons learned from 
Iraq demonstrate that the indirect fire threat to fixed sites 
is enduring and will likely proliferate, requiring: deployment 
of additional C-RAM systems; continuous improvements to its 
capabilities; and integration of the system into the Army's 
future force. The C-RAM system was rapidly developed and 
fielded in response to an urgent wartime need. It is not a 
program of record and therefore lacks the complete and 
necessary doctrine and support for training, operations, and 
manning. The committee does not direct a material solution, but 
does believe there is a requirement void that must be met as 
soon as possible.
    The committee understands that the Army has proposed to 
transition the C-RAM program into the Indirect Fire Protection 
Capability (IFPC) program of record. Given the success of the 
C-RAM system and the urgent need for additional systems and for 
system enhancements, the committee encourages the Army to 
complete this transition immediately. This transition will 
allow the new IFPC program to rapidly deploy capability to the 
field and to minimize development costs by evolving the C-RAM 
command and control and by capitalizing on the substantial 
investment of the Army in future force indirect fire sensors 
and intercept technologies. Immediate transition to the IFPC 
program of record will also enable funding for the IFPC program 
to begin in fiscal year 2010, thereby accelerating the fielding 
of IFPC to both the current and future force.

Section 237--Capabilities Based Assessment to Outline a Joint Approach 
     for Future Development of Vertical Lift Aircraft and Rotocraft

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff conduct a capabilities-
based assessment that outlines a joint approach to the future 
development of vertical lift aircraft and rotorcraft for all of 
the military services.

Section 238--Availability of Funds for Prompt Global Strike Capability 
                              Development

    This section would limit the use of funds for prompt global 
strike in fiscal year 2009 to only those activities expressly 
delineated in the expenditure plan for fiscal years 2008 and 
2009, that was required by section 243 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) and 
transmitted to the congressional defense committees on March 
24, 2008, or those activities otherwise expressly authorized by 
Congress. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on prompt global strike concepts to 
the congressional defense committees concurrently with the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2010.
    The committee expects the execution of the expenditure plan 
to be consistent with prompt global strike plans presented 
informally by the Department of Defense to the committee in 
April 2008. The committee anticipates near-term receipt of the 
research, development, and testing plan required by section 243 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) and intends to review it for consistency 
with the basic approaches presented to the committee in April 
2008.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained approximately $179.8 billion 
in operation and maintenance funds to ensure the Department of 
Defense can train, deploy, and sustain U.S. military forces. 
The budget request increased the operation and maintenance 
account by $15.6 billion over the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level, resulting in a 7.1 percent increase after accounting for 
inflation. The committee recommends additional funding for 
readiness needs and operations and maintenance expenses in this 
title and also title XV of this Act.
    The fiscal year 2009 budget request seeks to improve full-
spectrum ground combat training, but due to inflation and cost 
increases, it results in reductions in other areas. The fiscal 
year 2009 budget request reduces some air, ground, and sea 
training to below the level required to maintain military 
standards. Vital to training for full-spectrum missions are 
Combat Training Center rotations, sustained air crew training, 
and increased ship-deployed steaming days. The fiscal year 2009 
budget request significantly increases tank training miles over 
fiscal year 2008, but not above the fiscal year 2007 level. 
Flying hours slightly increase for the Navy and decline for the 
Air Force, but all are well below the levels for fiscal year 
2007. Ship steaming days remain at the level adopted in fiscal 
year 2008, which is below the deployed steaming days goal of 
51.
    The committee is gravely concerned with the continuing 
decline in the readiness of the armed forces. More than six 
years of continuous combat operations have placed a significant 
strain on the services, and this strain has begun to manifest 
itself in declining readiness trends across many aspects of 
U.S. military forces. Equipment shortfalls hamper the ability 
to train and deploy ground forces. Personnel shortfalls drive 
lengthy deployment periods, less than desirable dwell periods 
and a reliance on sailors and airmen to perform missions 
typically carried out by soldiers. Resource shortfalls and 
aging equipment reduce the mission capability of U.S. air 
forces. Shortfalls in maintenance have created significant 
equipment readiness deficiencies in the Navy's surface fleet. 
These problems indicate a military under significant strain as 
it supports ongoing operations.
    Readiness problems appear to be most severe in the ground 
forces, particularly the Army. Department of Defense readiness 
reports indicate that every non-deployed Army and Army National 
Guard combat brigade would face significant challenges 
completing their assigned full-spectrum combat missions if they 
were called upon to fight. Readiness shortfalls in equipment 
availability and training assessments can be attributed to the 
challenges of increased operational tempo on both equipment and 
personnel.
    Marine Corps readiness has declined since 2001, as 
continuous combat operations have consumed readiness. The 
nature of current combat operations has forced the Marine Corps 
to draw from equipment in non-deployed units and afloat stocks 
to meet operational needs, resulting in less equipment 
available for training. Added to this is the fact that the 
Marines, like the Army, are focusing heavily on counter-
insurgency operations in their training, resulting in an 
overall reduction of full mission capability.
    Readiness strains are also appearing in the Navy, where two 
surface warfare ships recently were found to be unfit for 
sustained combat. While Navy officials expect to find problems 
during inspections, the scale and scope of these material 
deficiencies raise questions about the sufficiency of the 
Navy's inspection process, especially during a time of 
increased deployment tempo and as Department of Defense 
officials underscore the reliance upon the Navy and Air Force 
as the nation's strategic reserve force and global deterrent.
    The Air Force continues to struggle with maintaining the 
full mission capability of its aircraft. Operational tempo for 
the Air Force has remained high since the first Gulf War, 
placing continued strain on the Air Force's aging aircraft 
fleet. Maintenance challenges have reduced overall mission 
capability rates below levels seen in prior years and are 
particularly troubling given that procurement programs for new 
aircraft will not fill capability gaps until the years beyond 
the Future Years Defense Plan.
    The committee continues to be concerned about the status of 
prepositioned stocks of combat equipment. The Army and Marine 
Corps have been forced to draw down these stocks to support 
ongoing operations and to fill shortfalls across the force. 
This drawdown has increased the time it will take to deploy 
equipment to a contingency. The committee notes that the 
intended restoration timeline of 2015 increases strategic risk 
for a significant period of time. For this reason, the 
committee strongly urges the Army and the Department of Defense 
to move rapidly to restore prepositioned stocks earlier than 
the current 2015 timeline.
    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 servicemembers and their 
families, and to prepare the military to fight today's battles 
while deterring and defending against future threats. The 
committee believes that the current funding levels for 
operation and maintenance are not sufficient to fully address 
the Department of Defense's needs while the military is engaged 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The 
committee has made significant adjustments to the budget 
request in order to address some of the most urgent shortfalls.
    The committee has added additional funds for: depot 
maintenance of ground equipment, ships, and aircraft; increased 
training of critical skills, exporting training from the combat 
training centers, and increased battle command training; 
increased ground force operational training; redistribution of 
equipment to fill shortages; and maintenance of missiles and 
ammunition stocks. The committee has directed funding to fill 
shortages in the prepositioned stocks and to repair and 
maintain barracks and troop housing in all of the services.
    The committee is very concerned about these readiness 
shortfalls expanding beyond fiscal year 2009 as stress on the 
operation and maintenance budget continues. Also disturbing is 
that the strategic risk presented by the degraded readiness 
posture shows no sign of improving in the near future. 
Readiness will improve only in the out years with intensive 
management and resourcing as the services require funding to 
reset and retrain their forces. For this reason, the committee 
strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to use every available 
authority to accelerate restoration of a strong readiness 
posture to reduce risk as soon as possible.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                       Budget Request Adjustments

    The committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
fiscal year 2009 amended budget request:

Operation and Maintenance, Army Adjustments:
    BA 1 Army Force Generation Synchronization Tool...........      +2.0
    BA 1 Cognitive Air Defense Trainer System (CAD-TS)........      +1.0
    BA 1 M--Gator.............................................      +1.0
    BA 1 Army NETCOM Unjustified Growth.......................    (10.0)
    BA 1 Army Asymmetric Warfare Office--IED Defeat Division--
      EOD.....................................................     +24.3
    BA 1 CASEVAC Medical Equipment Set (MES) Conversion Kits 
      (Ground & Air)..........................................      +3.5
    BA 1 M24 Sniper Weapons System Upgrade....................      +5.4
    BA 1 Depot Maintenance Increase...........................    +257.7
    BA 1 Integrated Training Area Management..................      +9.0
    BA 1 Training Support Centers--Fabricate Training Aids and 
      Devices.................................................     +10.0
    BA 2 Army Manufacturing Technical Assistance Production 
      Program (MTAPP).........................................      +2.5
    BA 3 Critical Skill Training TRADOC-TFNC..................     +48.0
    BA 3 Military Training Support Allotment MTSA--Additional 
      School Travel...........................................     +19.0
    BA 3 Leadership for Leaders at Fort Leavenworth...........      +2.0
    BA 3 United States Army Sergeants Major Academy Lecture 
      Center Audio Visual Equipment Replacement...............      +0.6
    BA 3 Operational/Technical Training Validation Test Bed...      +4.0
    BA 3 Arabic Strategic Language Program North Georgia 
      College and SU..........................................      +0.4
    BA 4 Army Directed Redistribution of Equipment to Fill 
      Unit Shortfalls.........................................     +50.0
    BA 4 Support Missile Stockpile Reliability Inspections and 
      Parts Obsolescence Issues...............................     +57.0
    BA 4 Condition Based Maintenance Information Management...      +5.0
    BA 4 Ammunition Readiness and Management..................     +60.0
    BA 4 Information Technology Agency Unjustified Growth.....    (10.0)
    BA 4 Army Knowledge Online Helpdesk.......................      +2.9
    BA 4 Army NETCOM Unjustified Growth.......................     (5.0)
    1BA 4 Fort Bliss Data Center COOP.........................      +5.0
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Adjustments:
    BA 1 Airframe Depot Maintenance...........................     +63.0
    BA 1 Ship Depot Maintenance...............................    +120.0
    BA 1 Mark 75 Maintenance Facility Support and Upgrade.....      +3.0
    BA 1 NULKA Support........................................      +2.0
    BA 1 Base-level Information Infrastructure (OCONUS) 
      Unjustified Growth......................................    (10.0)
    BA 3 Naval Sea Cadet Training.............................      +0.3
    BA 4 Secretary of the Navy Organizational Restructuring...     (3.2)
    BA 4 Navy Enterprise Office...............................     (2.4)
    Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..............   (115.0)
    Undistributed--Overstatement of Civilian Pay..............   (110.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Adjustments:
    BA 1 Clothing and Flame Resistant Organizational Gear.....     +44.9
    BA 1 Cold Weather Layering System (CWLS)..................      +4.0
    BA 1 Mobile Corrosion Prevention and Abatement Program....      +7.6
    BA 1 Consolidated Storage Program.........................     +14.1
    BA 1 BV206 Maintenance....................................      +2.0
    BA 4 Heroes and Healthy Families..........................      +1.0
    BA 4 Total Force Structure Management System (TFSMS)......      +2.9
    BA 4 Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP).............      +6.3
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Adjustments:
    BA 1 MBU-20A/P Oxygen Masks with Lights...................      +2.0
    BA 1 Contract Logistics Support...........................    (20.0)
    BA 1 Network Defense......................................    (10.0)
    BA 1 Other Costs..........................................     (2.0)
    BA 1 B-2 Depot Maintenance................................     (2.0)
    BA 1 F-15 Maintenance Support.............................   (447.0)
    BA 1 Base Communications..................................     (5.0)
    BA 1 Contract Logistics Support...........................     (7.0)
    BA 1 Weapon System Evaluation Program (WSEP)..............     (3.0)
    BA 1 Air Sovereignty Alert System.........................     +34.0
    BA 1 Tactical Intel and Other Special Activities--Other 
      Contracts...............................................    (20.0)
    BA 1 Launch Facilities--Other Contracts...................     (2.0)
    BA 1 Management Professional Services.....................     (2.0)
    BA 2 Airlift Operations--Other Contracts..................    (20.0)
    BA 2 Management Professional Services.....................     (2.0)
    BA 3 Engineering Training and Knowledge Preservation 
      System..................................................      +3.0
    BA 4 Wage Modification for Employees in Azores............      +0.2
    BA 4 Secure Site at Ely NV Radar Site (Edwards AFB).......      +0.7
    Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..............   (120.0)
    Undistributed--Overstatement of Civilian Pay..............   (220.0)
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide Adjustments:
    BA 4 National Guard Youth Challenge.......................      +5.0
    BA 4 Starbase.............................................      +1.0
    BA 4 SORTS Reduction......................................    (22.0)
    BA 4 Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities...      +5.0
    BA 4 Restoration of Staffing..............................     +10.5
    BA 4 Global Training and Equipment........................   (200.0)
    BA 4 Security and Stabilization Assistance................   (100.0)
    BA 4 Industrial Security Program..........................     +20.0
    BA 4 DOD Impact Aid.......................................     +50.0
    BA 4 World War II Museum..................................     +10.0
    BA 4 Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight.............     +20.0
    BA 4 Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 
      (REPI)..................................................     +21.0
    Undistributed--Unobligated Balances Estimate..............   (124.0)
    Undistributed--Interdisciplinary Critical Language and 
      Area Studies............................................      +3.5
    Undistributed--Family Support Programs....................     +15.0
    Undistributed--Emergency and Extraordinary Expenses.......     (0.3)
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve Adjustments:
    BA 1 Mobile Corrosion Prevention and Abatement Program....      +4.8
    BA 1 Increase in Full Time Reservists.....................     +12.0
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve Adjustments:
    BA 1 Air Force Reserve DPEM...............................     +60.0
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard Adjustments:
    BA 1 Increase in Full Time National Guard.................     +19.0
    BA 1 Mobile Corrosion Prevention and Abatement Program....      +4.8
    BA 4 Delaware Valley Continuing Education Initiative......      +1.0
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard Adjustments:
    BA 1 Depot Provided Equipment Maintenance.................     +50.0
Miscellaneous Appropriations Adjustments:
    Cooperative Threat Reduction (formerly former Soviet Union 
      threat reduction).......................................     +31.0

                         Air Sovereignty Alert

    The budget request contained no funds for the Air 
Sovereignty Alert (ASA) mission undertaken by the Air National 
Guard.
    The committee strongly supports the ASA mission and is 
concerned that by providing no funding in the budget request, 
the Air Force is not fully committed to this mission, which 
puts the ability of the Air National Guard to support it at 
risk.
    The committee recommends $34.0 million to fund this 
critical mission. In section 354 of this Act, the committee 
requires that future budget justifications include a specific 
break-out for ASA funds.

                           Cheyenne Mountain

    The budget request contained $1.2 million for contract 
logistics support for Global C3I and early warning, $7.9 
million of which included contractor logistics support for an 
increase in Cheyenne Mountain reconfiguration management and 
project engineering. The committee remains concerned that the 
U.S. Northern Command is proceeding with relocation of the 
North American Aerospace Defense Command center without full 
analysis of the cost and benefits of such relocation.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 million from 
the requested increase for Cheyenne Mountain support to ensure 
sufficient time to provide additional information on cost and 
benefits of the relocation. In section 1062 of this Act, the 
committee requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
and certify that the relocation does not increase risk to the 
mission or functions.

       Defense Contract Management Agency Restoration of Staffing

    The budget request contained $1.1 billion for the Defense 
Contract Management Agency (DCMA).
    The committee is concerned that from fiscal year 2000 to 
fiscal year 2007, the DCMA sustained a 79 percent increase in 
workload simultaneous with a 22 percent reduction in staff. In 
addition, the committee is aware that, if funded at the level 
of the budget request, the DCMA will lose funding for an 
additional 102 full time employees.
    The committee recommends $1.1 billion, an increase of $10.5 
million, for the Defense Contract Management Agency to restore 
staffing to fiscal year 2008 levels.

                            F-15 Maintenance

    The budget request contained $497.0 million for repairs of 
the F-15 A/D fighters as a result of cracks in the longerons 
resulting from stress. The committee recognizes that the 
repairs are essential; however, the committee believes that the 
costs of repairs have been overestimated. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $447.0 million as unjustified growth.

                Navy Headquarters Organizational Changes

    The budget request contained $5.6 million for the creation 
of new positions and standup of a new organization within the 
Navy headquarters. The proposed Deputy Under Secretary would 
advise the Secretary of the Navy on Maritime Domain Awareness 
support issues and coordinate policy with the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense. The proposed special assistant to the 
Secretary of the Navy would serve as senior advisor for policy 
relating to Navy undersea strategy. The proposed Navy 
Enterprise Office would ``assure standardization and 
coordination among all Navy enterprises.'' The committee 
believes the responsibility for requirements generation lies 
correctly within the purview of the Office of the Chief of 
Naval Operations. Additionally, the Navy did not provide the 
committee sufficient justification information regarding the 
authorities and responsibilities of the requested positions. 
The committee believes these functions are sufficiently covered 
by current Navy headquarters organizational structure and 
leadership.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $5.6 million to Navy 
servicewide support, administration.

                            Other Contracts

    The budget request contained additional funds for several 
line items entitled ``other contracts,'' ``other costs,'' and 
``management professional services.'' In many instances, the 
funding increases are substantial. The committee is concerned 
that there is no transparency to allow for effective oversight 
when funds are consolidated in these categories. The committee 
notes that section 806 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), which requires 
service contracts to be broken out separately in the budget 
justification materials, was intended to obtain greater 
fidelity on these categories as related to service contracts.
    Where there was a substantial but unexplained growth, the 
committee recommends the following decreases: $2.0 million from 
Other Costs, Combat Communications (line 050); $20.0 million 
from Other Contracts, Tactical Intel and Other Special 
Activities (line 140); $2.0 million from Other Contracts, 
Launch Facilities (line 150); $2.0 million from Management 
Professional Services, Other Space Operations (line 190); $20.0 
million from Other Contracts, Airlift Operations (line 240); 
$2.0 million from Management Professional Services, Airlift 
Operations C3I (line 250).

           Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

    The budget request contained $39.8 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 partner with public and private entities to 
establish protective buffer zones around military installations 
that have impending encroachment pressures. The committee 
recognizes the benefits of REPI, including its ability to 
enhance military readiness, increase protection of key military 
spaces and natural habitats, foster public safety standards, 
and encourage economic growth.
    The committee recommends $60.8 million, an increase of 
$21.0 million, for the Readiness and Environmental Protection 
Initiative.

                          Readiness Shortfalls

    Budget justification materials provided to the committee 
demonstrated readiness shortfalls across the military services, 
in both the active-duty and reserve components. For depot-level 
maintenance, the committee recommends the following increases 
to improve readiness by reducing maintenance shortfalls and 
deferrals across various platforms:
          (1) Army Land Forces Depot Maintenance, $257.7 
        million to repair and recapitalize equipment including 
        communications electronics; missile end items; other--
        construction ships, rails, bulldozers; combat vehicles; 
        M88A1; and armored combat earth mover; and to increase 
        the capacity and efficiency of the depots;
          (2) Navy Airframe Depot Maintenance, $63.0 million;
          (3) Navy Ship Depot Maintenance, $120.0 million;
          (4) Air Force Reserve Depot Provided Equipment 
        Maintenance, $60.0 million; and
          (5) Air National Guard Depot Provided Equipment 
        Maintenance, $50.0 million.
    To address other concerns related to the declining 
readiness posture of the Army, the committee has recommended 
increases of $117.0 million for Army missile and ammunition 
maintenance, $50.0 million to redistribute Army equipment and 
fill unit shortages; and $110.3 million for training. 
Additionally, the committee has recommended an additional $70.2 
million for unfunded Marine Corps operation and maintenance 
needs.

                              Secure Site

    The budget request contained no funds for security 
enhancements at isolated range tracking sites located near 
Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB). The committee is concerned about 
potential unauthorized entry at these sites.
    The committee recommends $0.7 million to fund security 
enhancements at these radar sites and to demolish buildings at 
an EAFB radar site near Ely, Nevada.

                             Energy Issues


                          Energy Conversation

    The committee commends the considerable efforts of the 
Secretary of Defense to improve the energy security of the 
United States. The Department of Defense has been at the 
forefront of federal government efforts to promote, develop, 
and implement energy conservation, energy efficiency, and 
advanced energy technologies, including renewable energy. In 
particular, the committee acknowledges the efforts of the 
Department to support the Energy Conversation, begun in 2006, 
to facilitate and accelerate the adoption of energy-related 
policy changes to maintain U.S. military superiority and 
enhance U.S. national security. These policy objectives include 
reducing energy intensity, reducing reliance upon imported oil, 
and developing domestic, renewable energy sources for energy 
needs. Recent programs sponsored by the Energy Conversation 
include: the development of a public and government-wide portal 
for collaborative exchange of energy developments; the creation 
of a government directory of individuals with energy 
portfolios; and the drafting of an energy manual for educating 
current and rising leaders about the costs and consequences of 
energy-related decisions in their jobs.
    The committee finds that the Energy Conversation 
initiatives reduce transaction costs and unnecessary 
duplication of energy-related decisions by connecting stove-
piped federal government policymakers and informing the public 
about the costs and consequences of energy-related decisions. 
The committee recognizes that the Energy Conversation 
facilitates solutions to the energy security challenges faced 
by the nation because a single agency cannot overcome them.

               Energy Security on Military Installations

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
appears to lack a coherent strategy for energy security on 
military installations. Despite the absence of a coherent 
strategy, the committee recognizes numerous individual efforts 
by the military services to address energy security on 
installations. The committee believes that these efforts 
reflect the services' willingness to take the initiative and 
creatively apply their authorities. While the committee is 
pleased with the leadership shown by the services, the 
committee would prefer to see the Department of Defense 
centralize leadership, ensure collaboration of efforts, and 
implement a coherent and comprehensive installation energy 
security strategy. In addition, the committee believes that the 
Department of Energy should take a greater role in initiating 
clean alternative energy programs across the federal 
government.

   Improving Energy Efficiency in Reset and Recapitalization Programs

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
spends billions of dollars each year to reset and recapitalize 
its operational systems. The reset program includes actions to 
not only repair equipment, but also to enhance or replace 
equipment used in support operations for current conflicts. 
Additionally, the committee is aware that a recent Defense 
Science Board report ``More Fight--Less Fuel'' is consistent 
with a number of preceding reports that conclude there are 
operational benefits to deploying technologies that enable 
systems to use fuel more efficiently, and technical options 
available for doing so.
    The committee recognizes value in the inclusion of analyses 
of new energy technologies in the Department's decisions to 
upgrade and modify systems during reset. Such technologies 
should be valued in terms of operational capability and an 
economic business case using the fully burdened cost of fuel to 
determine the benefits.
    Therefore, 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, 2009, on 
technologies that are suitably mature to be integrated into 
reset and recapitalization programs that, if deployed, could 
reduce energy consumption. Such a report shall include the list 
of reset and recapitalization programs planned by the military 
services through the Future Years Defense Program, and a 
description of technologies capable of improving systems' 
energy efficiency considered to have reached an appropriate 
technology readiness level to enable integration in the reset 
program without causing undue delay in the fielding of critical 
systems to the warfighter.

                          Environmental Issues


        Marine Mammal Protection Act National Defense Exemption

    The committee notes that the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
invoked a two-year national defense exemption from the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (Public Law 92-522), under the authority 
provided by section 1361-1421h of title 16, United States Code, 
on January 23, 2007. In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008, the committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report on those activities undertaken under the 
authority of the exemption. This report was received February 
5, 2008.
    The committee is aware that the Department of the Navy 
intends to achieve full compliance with the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA) and other environmental laws by issuing 
environmental impact statements (EIS) addressing sonar use on 
all training ranges and operating areas before the expiration 
of the exemption.
    For the second year of the two-year exemption, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report 
on specific activities undertaken under the authority of the 
exemption to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2009. The 
report shall include 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 on these species. The committee 
also directs the Secretary to report on the status of each of 
the range and operating area EISs, including a strategy and 
schedule for achieving long-term compliance with MMPA and other 
relevant environmental laws if it has not already been 
achieved.
    The committee is concerned that naval force readiness may 
be affected by a growing number of environmental statutes 
beyond the Marine Mammal Protection Act. For example, the 
committee is aware of litigation resulting in an injunction 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190) 
limiting fleet training exercises to the extent that the Chief 
of Naval Operations (CNO) concluded ``unacceptably risks the 
training of naval forces for deployment to high-threat areas 
overseas.'' The committee welcomes the CNO's view of the 
readiness implications of future federal court rulings limiting 
naval force training and will carefully review the outcome of 
all pending cases.

       Measurement of Encroachment Impacts on Military Readiness

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the 
committee directed the Comptroller General to report on whether 
exemptions granted under environmental laws resulted in a 
measured increase in military readiness. In March 2008, the 
Comptroller General issued a report recommending that the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Environment and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness jointly develop a sound business case 
that includes detailed qualitative and quantitative analyses 
assessing the associated benefits, costs, and risks of proposed 
exemptions from environmental laws. The committee believes that 
the ability to measure the effects of encroachment on military 
readiness is a key element of such a business case.
    The committee is aware that the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (OSD) and the military services are developing systems 
to measure the effects of encroachment on training ranges. For 
example, OSD is working to develop the capability of the 
Defense Readiness Reporting System to identify the extent to 
which encroachment factors affect a range's ability to support 
various operational capabilities. The Department of Defense 
plans to pilot test this new functionality during calendar year 
2008. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 
a report on the findings of the pilot effort and how 
encroachment affects the training and readiness levels of 
tactical units of the military services. In addition, the 
committee directs the Secretary to summarize the status of the 
individual services' reporting systems, and assess whether 
requirements for these individual systems are sufficiently 
consistent so that information produced will serve both the 
Department's and services' needs. The Secretary shall submit 
these reports to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2009.

              Environmental Management Information Systems

    The committee is aware that Executive Order 13423, 
``Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 
Transportation Management,'' requires federal officials to 
implement sustainable practices for greenhouse gas emissions 
and environmental management on installations. The executive 
order also recognizes the successful use of environmental 
management systems within organizations and requires more 
widespread use of that management framework to implement, 
measure, and improve upon sustainable practices. The committee 
is aware of the time and costs associated with paper-based 
environmental management systems and encourages the Department 
of Defense to develop and deploy a web-based environmental 
management information system to achieve uniform policies and 
practices for sustainable environmental compliance and 
reporting.

                       Workplace and Depot Issues


                    Army Rail Shop Relocation Study

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense's sole 
capability for depot-level repair and maintenance of rail stock 
and rail equipment, as well as certain types of large-scale 
power-generation equipment, is managed by the U.S. Army Tank 
and Automotive Command at facilities located at Hill Air Force 
Base (AFB), Utah, which has been operating under a tenant 
support agreement with the Air Force. The Air Force has 
notified the Army of its intent, under terms of the support 
agreement, to terminate the Army's occupancy of the current 
rail shop facilities within an approximate five-year time frame 
in order to facilitate the Air Force's master plan for the 
Westside Development project at Hill AFB. This termination will 
necessitate the relocation of this core maintenance capability. 
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to 
report to the congressional defense committees by March 30, 
2009, on the primary considerations involved in relocating the 
rail shop core capabilities. The report shall include a 
discussion of the core capabilities, the cost and manpower 
implications of such a move, and a list of the most practical 
relocation alternatives. The alternatives shall include 
consideration of Tooele Army Depot's central rail location, its 
inherent rail operations capabilities, and its history as the 
rail shop prior to consolidation to Hill AFB in the early 
1990s.

                      Post-Reset Depot Maintenance

    Section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to retain the core logistics 
capabilities needed to ensure a ready and controlled source of 
technical competencies and resources necessary to ensure 
effective, timely response to mobilization, national defense 
contingency situations, and other emergency requirements. In 
light of the increased reliability and maintainability of 
military weapons systems and equipment, the committee must 
understand what enduring depot capabilities will be needed to 
support long-term national security needs through peacetime, 
persistent conflict, and future surge contingencies. These 
depot capabilities include facilities, skills, and equipment.
    The Government Accountability Office noted that previous 
DOD efforts have not provided Congress with the information 
necessary to assess what the Department requires in terms of 
enduring depot capability and the legislative framework in 
which this capability should exist to establish a long-term, 
cost-effective approach. In June 2007, the Government 
Accountability Office reported: ``DOD has not set forth all the 
information needed to effectively guide the military depots 
into the future. Without a comprehensive baseline that 
identifies the current state of the depots and outlines the 
actions that will be needed to ensure the military depots are 
postured, resourced and equipped with the necessary facilities, 
equipment, technical capabilities and skilled workforce, the 
depots may not be prepared to support long-term national 
security needs.''
    The committee believes that when wartime operations in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan cease, 
and supplemental appropriations for depot-related maintenance 
are reduced, DOD depots must not return to the post-Cold War 
environment where public- and private-sector facilities fought 
for limited available workload to the detriment of both. 
Therefore, the committee has included in this Act a provision 
requiring that the Department enter into a contract for an 
independent study of the organic capability needed to provide 
depot-level maintenance in the post-reset environment.

                   Inherently Governmental Functions

    The committee is concerned about a range of issues 
involving the proper role of contractors in supporting the 
mission of the Department of Defense (DOD), including the 
extent to which contractors may be performing inherently 
governmental functions. In general, the committee believes that 
agencies must be properly staffed with government employees, 
both civilian and military, to perform not only functions 
identified as those which must be performed by government 
employees (including oversight of the work being performed by 
private sector contractors), but those commercial-type 
functions that should be performed by government employees in 
order to retain certain core capabilities as a matter of 
national policy. Recognizing this need, Congress created, in 
section 804 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) another category 
of functions applicable only to the Department of Defense, 
``functions closely associated with inherently governmental 
functions.'' Furthermore, section 324 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) 
required defense agencies, to the maximum extent practicable, 
to bring in-house positions performing inherently governmental 
functions, or those closely associated with inherently 
governmental functions.
    The Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing on this issue 
on March 11, 2008, during which the subcommittee heard from 
various witnesses about the Department's increased reliance on 
services provided by contractors. The committee recognizes that 
there are both advantages and disadvantages associated with 
this development, and that determining which functions should 
only be performed by government employees may be difficult. 
That task is made even more difficult by the lack of a single 
definition and accompanying guidance on what constitutes an 
``inherently governmental function.'' Currently, the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation defines that term in multiple places, 
the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 also defines 
the term, and there is yet another definition in the Federal 
Activities Inventory Reform Act (Public Law 105-270). There 
also is the additional DOD-specific definition of ``closely 
associated with inherently governmental functions.''
    While these various definitions are similar, they are not 
consistent in all respects. The committee believes that an 
essential first step in reaching consensus on what functions 
are inherently governmental is to have a single, consistent 
definition of that term. To that end, the committee proposes 
legislation in section 322 of this Act that would require the 
Office of Management and Budget to develop a single definition 
of ``inherently governmental'' and ensure that it is used 
consistently in all implementing guidance and regulations. This 
will assist the Department and all federal agencies in 
achieving the goal of minimizing potential conflicts of 
interest in the government's decisionmaking process. Finally, 
the committee encourages the Department to ensure that DOD 
internal implementing guidance is sufficiently specific in 
order to facilitate appropriate staffing decisions within the 
Department.

     Report on Actions Taken Related to Public-Private Competitions

    Section 325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) prohibited the Department 
of Defense from undertaking, preparing for, continuing, or 
completing public-private competitions in fulfillment of any 
requirements for such competitions at the direction of the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The provision also 
prohibited the Office of Management and Budget from issuing 
such directions to the Department. In addition to the 
restrictions on OMB influence, section 323 of Public Law 110-
181 overturned mandatory requirements, outlined in OMB Circular 
A-76, for recompetitions of employees in a Most Efficient 
Organization after a period of five years.
    The committee regrets that the Department has not issued 
guidance to implement either section in compliance with 
congressional intent. The committee is aware that the 
Department has denied military commands' requests to cancel 
competitions, or to defer or reduce the scope of competitions 
where sections 323 or 325 have been cited among the commands' 
rationale.
    Of further concern to the committee is a March 20, 2008, 
memorandum by the Under Secretary of Defense which reaffirms 
the Department's commitment to public-private competitions as 
part of the President's Management Agenda, as enforced by the 
Office of Management and Budget. This memorandum also stresses 
that recompetitions should be continued. As a result, the 
committee believes that both section 323 and 325 are being 
disregarded by the Department.
    Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
immediately issue implementation guidelines and honor such 
requests for cancellations, deferrals, or reductions in scope 
of competition in accordance with the provisions included in 
Public Law 110-181. Furthermore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to report by October 1, 2008, to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services on all competitions initiated since May 30, 
2007, as well as all requests for cancellations, deferrals, or 
requests for reductions in scope by military commands, and any 
actions taken in regard to the requests, including 
justifications for any refusals.

                             Other Matters


                  Army Logistics Modernization Program

    The Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) is the Army's 
enterprise resource planning system for achieving an integrated 
supply chain. To date, the Army spent $637.3 million developing 
and transitioning to LMP, and the program cost through fiscal 
year 2015 is projected to be $2.1 billion. The committee 
understands that relying on legacy information systems is not a 
long-term solution to logistics support, but is concerned that 
future implementation of LMP at Army depots could disrupt depot 
operations and crucial warfighter support during a time of 
conflict. Such disruption was experienced in 2003 at Tobyhanna 
Army Depot due to implementation of LMP. Additionally, the 
committee is concerned that the intended system capability end-
state is not understood by all relevant parties, from depot 
production-line employees to Headquarters, U.S. Army Materiel 
Command (AMC).
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to submit a report on LMP implementation at Army depots and 
expected end-state capabilities of LMP to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, 
and the Comptroller General, by January 31, 2009. This report 
shall include:
          (1) Expected LMP capabilities at the levels of depot 
        production, business operations and financial 
        management, and Headquarters, AMC;
          (2) Specific LMP capabilities implemented at each 
        depot;
          (3) Date of expected implementation at each depot;
          (4) Description of how LMP will forecast future 
        maintenance capacity and drive budgetary decisions;
          (5) Percentage of workforce at each depot expected to 
        be proficient on the system;
          (6) Strategy to educate and train depot employees on 
        system capabilities and the new business approach to 
        resource planning and supply chain management as a 
        result of LMP implementation;
          (7) Detailed plan for ensuring 100 percent of each 
        depot's operating files are loaded by the planned date 
        of implementation at each depot;
          (8) Leveraging of lessons learned from previous 
        implementations; and
          (9) Detailed risk-mitigation strategy to support 
        current production in the event that LMP implementation 
        is not as successful as planned.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to review the report submitted by the Secretary of the 
Army for completeness and provide a report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2009. The committee directs the Secretary 
of the Army to certify to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services that each 
Army depot is prepared for the transition to LMP. This 
certification must be applied 30 days prior to any transition 
to LMP.

   Clarification of Department of Defense Transportation Regulations

    The committee is aware that a policy directive related to 
the transport of Department of Defense (DOD) cargo within the 
United States issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition Technology and Logistics in 1998 to all DOD 
components was intended to move the Department and the military 
services to the same mode-neutral, time-definite delivery model 
successfully being used by the commercial transportation 
industry. However, a subsequent Air Mobility Command regulation 
conflicts with DOD policy by requiring the use of aircraft for 
shipment even when it makes little economic sense. The 
committee proposes a legislative requirement, in section 356 of 
this Act, to address this inconsistency.
    The committee also notes the confusion between the terms 
``air carrier'' and the term ``air freight forwarder,'' as well 
as a lack of understanding of the contractual conditions 
required by the Surface Distribution and Deployment Command 
under which ``air freight forwarders'' operate. The committee 
understands this confusion to be generated by lack of clear 
guidance, uncertain definitions of terms, and poor training, 
which results in transportation inefficiencies and unnecessary 
cost to the taxpayers. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to clarify the Department's transportation regulations 
to provide specific definitions for the various transportation 
carriers, and provide additional guidance and training to 
ensure that all DOD entities use commercial best practices when 
shipping any DOD cargo. A copy of the additional guidance shall 
be provided to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2008.

                    Corrosion Control and Prevention

    The committee is disappointed that the Department of 
Defense (DOD) failed to submit, with its fiscal year 2009 
budget materials, the report on the corrosion control and 
prevention strategy and funding requirements as stipulated in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181).
    The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) review of the 
fiscal year 2009 budget submission, as required by Public Law 
110-181, shows total funding of $14.1 million for the DOD 
Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office against a fiscal year 
2009 requirement of $33.8 million, including $28.5 million for 
projects. The Government Accountability Office reported to the 
committee on April 3, 2008, that the Department calculated an 
overall 40-to-1 return on investment (ROI) for corrosion 
control projects. Using DOD requirements data and overall ROI 
averages, the Government Accountability Office calculated that 
if all fiscal year 2009 validated requirements were funded, the 
total ROI would be $1.2 billion.
    The committee is disappointed that requirements for systems 
and services, rather than ROI and readiness, drive corrosion 
prevention and control program funding levels in the 
Department's annual budget process. For example, current depot-
maintenance requirements for corrosion abatement on F-22 Raptor 
aircraft are extensive, and result from decisions made during 
program development. The committee finds such an approach to 
corrosion prevention to be fiscally short-sighted and 
detrimental to readiness.
    In order to move the Department to sustainment-based 
outcomes regarding corrosion control and prevention versus 
budget-driven decisions, the committee has included a provision 
in this Act that would require the Department to examine 
corrosion control and prevention for improvements in system 
acquisition.
    Additionally, the committee disputes the military services' 
practice of relying upon congressionally directed funding for 
specific corrosion control programs. This strategy places 
corrosion abatement and equipment readiness at risk. The 
committee expects the services to program for corrosion control 
and prevention projects in future annual budget requests.

                         Defense Travel System

    The committee is concerned that the Defense Travel System 
(DTS) still books less than one-third of Department of Defense 
temporary duty (TDY) travel despite the Department's spending 
approximately $500.0 million over 10 years in an effort to 
field a comprehensive TDY travel management system. The system 
in large part does not support users at remote locations 
isolated from large military installations, such as reserve, 
national guard, and Army Corps of Engineer travelers. The 
committee believes remote users would benefit most from a user-
friendly, comprehensive web-based system, yet these users must 
rely on inefficient legacy travel systems. The committee 
recognizes that improvements have been made, and acknowledges 
expert testimony that the DTS, despite its problems, remains 
the Department's best option for a future user-friendly, 
efficient system capable of capturing necessary financial data.
    In that regard, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to aggressively pursue efforts to: make DTS user-
friendly with minimal training; implement DTS for remote users, 
Navy ships afloat, and permanent change of station travel; 
mandate the discontinuance of all legacy systems; review and 
simplify complex travel rules where possible; and explore the 
use of restricted air fare tickets. The committee further 
directs the Secretary to establish timelines to accomplish 
these measures and directs the Secretary to report on the 
Department's progress in meeting these timelines, and any 
legislative changes he considers necessary, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by December 31, 2008.

Report on Feasibility of Department of Defense Civilian Law Enforcement 
                                 Force

    The committee is concerned with the military services, 
particularly the Department of the Army, over-relying on 
contractors to provide security at military installations. It 
is the committee's position that the creation of a Department-
wide professional law enforcement force would ensure 
consistency in training standards, provide incentives for 
civilians to consider such positions as a long-time career, and 
enhance security at military installations. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to review the feasibility of 
establishing a corps of civilian police and security officers 
under the authority and direction of the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense and report on the results of this review. 
The report shall include findings and recommendations of the 
Secretary that address the following:
          (1) Current and future security needs and functions, 
        including security guards, at all military 
        installations;
          (2) Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of 
        consolidating all civilian police and security officers 
        of the military defense departments and defense 
        agencies into a single civilian corps of police and 
        security officers under the authority of the Secretary;
          (3) Recruitment, training, and equipment standards 
        necessary for Department of Defense (DOD) employees who 
        perform law enforcement and security functions;
          (4) Personnel infrastructure necessary to oversee the 
        establishment and management of a DOD civilian corps of 
        police and security officers;
          (5) Anticipated interaction with other federal, 
        state, and local law enforcement agencies, including 
        rendering assistance upon request; and
          (6) Any statutory, regulatory, or policy changes 
        affecting pay, benefits, and law enforcement powers.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report on his findings, recommendations, and any necessary 
statutory changes, to the congressional defense committees by 
March 30, 2009.

Report on Improving Supply Chain Management to Enhance Joint Logistics 
                               Capability

    The committee is concerned about the risk associated with 
the Department of Defense's supply-chain management. The 
committee notes that the Comptroller General identified supply-
chain management as one of the Department's high-risk areas and 
initiated a review of the Department's progress in improving 
supply chain management. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report, by March 1, 2009, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services on the Department's plan to improve defense logistics 
capability, particularly to meet the demands of the combatant 
commanders in a joint and globally responsive fashion. The 
report shall include, at a minimum: implementation plans for 
the joint logistics capability portfolio management; long-term 
strategies for improving joint logistics; and recommendations 
for statutory, regulatory, or organizational changes needed to 
facilitate improved supply-chain management and enhanced joint 
logistics capability.

 Space-Available Priority for Military Retirees with Specialty Medical 
                             Care Referral

    Section 374 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) addresses the space-
available (Space-A) priority level of military retirees 
residing in the U.S. territories who need to travel from the 
territory to receive special medical care. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to report on implementation of 
section 374 to include the number and frequency of affected 
military retirees who have availed themselves of Space-A seats 
in the previous year, and those who requested transportation 
under this authority but were not accommodated. The Secretary 
shall submit his report, along with any recommendations for 
improvements, to the congressional defense committees by 
February 1, 2009.

                      Space Wargames and Exercises

    The committee is concerned that our armed forces have had 
relatively little experience in dealing with the loss or 
degradation of key space capabilities. The committee notes the 
Schriever wargame series managed by Air Force Space Command is 
the primary Department of Defense wargame that examines space 
operations and the only wargame focused on space protection 
across the national security space enterprise. However, as a 
major command wargame, it is limited to examining future space 
capabilities and concepts of operations for the Air Force. The 
committee believes wargames and exercises can improve our 
military and policymakers' preparedness to cope with conflicts 
involving space. The committee therefore encourages the 
Department to: embed space capability effects in joint and 
service-level wargames and exercises; incorporate scenarios 
that deny space capabilities in a realistic manner; seek 
greater participation from the defense, intelligence, civil, 
commercial, and international sectors; and adequately fund such 
events.

Tactical and Medium-Altitude Unmanned Aerial Systems Pilot Training and 
                               Management

    The committee is aware that there are disparate military 
service approaches to training and managing unmanned aerial 
systems (UAS) operators in the Department of Defense. As one 
example, the Army certifies enlisted operators through a common 
core program that is comprised of approximately nine weeks of 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) compliant instruction and 
testing. Graduates of the program receive FAA Ground School 
certification and go on to an additional 12 weeks of ground, 
simulator, and flight training if they are to operate Shadow or 
Hunter UASs. Sky Warrior UAS operators receive up to 25 weeks 
of additional instruction following the Common Core program, 
which includes instruction on the National Airspace System. 
Operators must pass an FAA instrument written examination to 
achieve certification.
    Conversely, the Air Force requires medium-altitude UAS 
operators to be pilots and has historically filled UAS operator 
billets with rated officers who have previously flown aircraft 
such as F-16s or F-15s. Recent press reports have indicated 
that UAS operator manning shortfalls, driven by increased 
demand for UAS support of on-going combat operations, have 
resulted in substantial force management problems for the Air 
Force. Under current Air Force policy, completion of 
Undergraduate Pilot Training takes approximately one year. 
Follow-on UAS training requires approximately four months. If 
the Air Force continues to mandate manned-aircraft experience 
prior to assignment as a UAS operator, development and training 
is increased by another four and one-half years. Consequently, 
it can take the Air Force approximately six years to produce a 
UAS operator.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide for an independent assessment of the training and 
force management policies of the military services with regard 
to UAS operators, to be conduced by a federally-funded research 
and development center selected by the Secretary. The 
assessment shall be provided to the congressional defense 
committees by September 30, 2009, and shall examine each of the 
military services' current standards and practices to include:
          (1) Current and planned UAS mission operator 
        requirements and the ability of current military 
        service programs to produce sufficient UAS operators to 
        meet current and planned UAS programs;
          (2) Qualifications needed for UAS operators compared 
        to current qualifications established by each military 
        service for those operators, and whether the 
        establishment of a common qualification standard and 
        training system is justified in terms of cost of 
        training UAS operators and length of time to produce a 
        fully qualified UAS operator;
          (3) Historical performance and proficiency in terms 
        of accident and safety data associated with UAS 
        operations, to include specific accident data for UAS 
        systems that do not have automatic landing capability;
          (4) Recommendations for the feasibility and 
        advisability of changing the current individual 
        military service's UAS training system to include 
        options such as a creation of a modified Undergraduate 
        Pilot Training course that would serve as a joint 
        training environment to produce well trained, 
        certified, and ready UAS operators;
          (5) Recommendations for improving force management, 
        retention, and recruiting to support UAS operator 
        requirements for the Department; and
          (6) Recommendations for reducing accidents and 
        improving safety, with specific considerations for 
        reducing accidents in the landing/recovery phase.

                           Tire Privatization

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
implemented the Tire Commodity Management Privatization 
initiative in compliance with the Base Closure and Realignment 
Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) as amended. Under this 
initiative, the Department shifted responsibility for the 
supply, storage, and distribution for all tires managed by the 
Department from the Defense Logistics Agency to a contractor 
who would be in charge of procuring and distributing all ground 
and air military tires worldwide for the Department and the 
military services.
    The committee recognizes the initiative's intent was to 
lower costs and streamline and improve the process of getting 
tires to the warfighter. The Defense Logistics Agency has 
created incentives for the qualification of additional 
suppliers on tires that are currently obtained from a single 
source, and has required the contractor to ensure that a 
minimum of 35 percent of all tires purchased under the program 
come from suppliers other than the prime contractor for tire 
types where more than one supplier exists. The committee is 
aware that the Defense Logistics Agency is continuing to 
examine whether the 35 percent minimum requirement is 
sufficient to maintain the domestic industrial base for 
military tire manufacturing; support future innovations for 
military tires; and preserve a competitive environment for 
current and future competitions. As part of this effort, the 
committee understands that the Defense Logistics Agency is 
undertaking a Milestone C evaluation for cost and performance 
of the tire privatization contract, which is expected to be 
completed in June 2008. The committee directs the Director of 
the Defense Logistics Agency to provide a copy of the 
evaluation to the congressional defense committees within 30 
days after the completion of the evaluation.
    Furthermore, the committee reiterates its concern that the 
current contract was awarded to the prime contractor in a 
manner similar to that of using a ``lead systems integrator,'' 
which is an acquisition strategy the committee has addressed in 
several previous defense bills. The committee is concerned that 
such an approach may not provide all qualified tire 
manufacturers equal footing in the defense market. The 
performance period of the current contract, which is structured 
to have a five-year base and a five-year option, could prove 
detrimental to the industrial base and follow-on competitions.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

    This section would authorize $154.5 billion in operation 
and maintenance funding for the military departments and 
defense-wide activities.

                  Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions


 Section 311--Authorization for Department of Defense Participation in 
                     Conservation Banking Programs

    This section would authorize the Department of Defense to 
participate in conservation banking programs as defined in 
``Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of 
Conservation Banks'' (68 Federal Register 24753, May 2, 2003), 
or to make an `in-lieu-fee' payment for habitat conservation 
purposes as defined in ``Federal Guidance on the Use of In-
Lieu-Fee Arrangements for Compensatory Mitigation Under Section 
404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and 
Harbors Act'' (65 Federal Register 66915, November 7, 2000). 
Conservation banking and in-lieu-fee arrangements are 
additional tools to help the Department mitigate the impacts of 
military activities on the environment.

   Section 312--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 $64,049.40 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 313--Expand Cooperative Agreement Authority for Management of 
        Natural Resources to Include Off-Installation Mitigation

    This section would amend section 103a(a) of the Sikes Act 
(16 U.S.C. 670c-1(a)) to expand the authority of the 
secretaries of the military departments to enter into 
cooperative agreements with states, local governments, 
nongovernmental organizations, and individuals for the 
maintenance and improvement of natural resources located off of 
military installations or to undertake mitigation measures 
necessary to address potential natural resource impacts caused 
by Department of Defense activities. Such cooperative 
agreements are expected to be complimentary with other relevant 
natural resource management strategies affecting the 
Department's installations, such as Integrated Natural Resource 
Management Plans, and with broader landscape conservation 
initiatives, such as State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 
Plans. This section would not waive any requirement under 
federal or state law.

                 Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot Issues


Section 321--Time Limitation on Duration of Public-Private Competitions

    This section would restrict to 540 days the time from the 
beginning of preliminary planning to the rendering of the 
performance decision for any public-private competitions 
conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular 
A-76. The time period would take into account any delays 
resulting from a protest before the Government Accountability 
Office or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The committee does 
not intend this language to be used by the Department of 
Defense to stop an A-76 competition that has overrun the 540 
days and then be restarted at a later date.

     Section 322--Comprehensive Analysis and Development of Single 
     Government-wide Definition of Inherently Governmental Function

    This section would require the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget and appropriate representatives of the 
Chief Acquisition Officers Council and the Chief Human Capital 
Council to review the existing statutory and regulatory 
definitions of ``inherently governmental'' functions and to 
develop a single consistent definition. The single definition 
should address any deficiencies in the current definitions and 
be sufficiently generic to enable federal agencies to determine 
which functions or positions should be performed only by 
government civilian or military personnel. Criteria should be 
developed to enable federal agencies to identify the functions 
and positions that, though not falling within the definition of 
inherently governmental, should nevertheless be performed by 
government employees. In developing the single government-wide 
definition, public comment should be solicited. This section 
also requires a report on the actions taken to develop the 
single definition and make recommendations for any necessary 
legislative actions. The report shall be submitted one year 
after date of enactment of this Act to the appropriate 
committees of Congress. Implementing regulations shall be 
issued 180 days after submission of the report.

             Section 323--Study on Future Depot Capability

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services an independent, quantitative 
assessment of the organic capability that will be required to 
provide depot-level maintenance in the post-reset environment. 
The study would examine all active and reserve capability in 
the public and private sectors involved in lifecycle 
sustainment of weapons systems. It also would examine relevant 
Department of Defense guidance, regulations, and applicable 
federal law and would address the current and future lifecycle 
sustainment maintenance strategy, implementation plan, and 
maintenance environment.
    The report provided by the independent entity would include 
recommendations on the requirement for an enduring organic 
depot capability, appropriate changes to law, and incentives to 
achieve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. It also would 
include a proposed roadmap to meet materiel readiness goals of 
availability, reliability, total ownership cost, and repair 
cycle time. The Comptroller General shall review the report and 
provide findings within 90 days of submission.
    Within funds contained in this Act for analysis and support 
for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the committee 
recommends that not more than $1.5 million of these funds shall 
be available for the required study.

      Section 324--High-Performing Organization Business Process 
                             Reengineering

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop guidelines for establishing high-performing 
organizations conducted through a business process 
reengineering initiative. Such guidance shall include an 
assessment of the affected number of employees, functions to be 
included, the high-performing business location, and timeline 
for implementation of the high-performing organization. This 
section would impose certain requirements prior to the 
establishment of a high-performing organization, including 
compliance with collective bargaining statutes and a 45 day 
congressional notification. This section also would require an 
annual performance evaluation, with a report to the 
congressional defense committees.

    Section 325--Temporary Suspension of Studies and Public-Private 
  Competitions Regarding Conversion of Functions of the Department of 
   Defense Performed by Civilian Employees to Contractor Performance

    This section would suspend public-private competitions 
within the Department of Defense until the end of fiscal year 
2011. The committee is concerned that the turbulence caused by 
the Department's efforts to increase the services' end 
strengths; implementation of the 2005 Base Closure and 
Realignment decisions; and execution of transformational 
initiatives while concurrently conducting sustained combat 
operations could impede sound out-sourcing decisions. The 
committee, therefore, recommends the suspension to ensure that 
the Department is not making force-management decisions at a 
time of substantial transition and transformation.

Section 326--Consolidation of Air Force and Air National Guard Aircraft 
                              Maintenance

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force 
from consolidating Air National Guard with active-duty Air 
Force maintenance activities and facilities without first 
consulting with, and obtaining the consent of, the National 
Guard Bureau. It would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services on the assumptions and 
criteria used to evaluate the feasibility of consolidation. 
Before any consolidation actions are taken, this section would 
require the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services on the feasibility study findings and recommendations, 
the Air Force's assessment of the findings and recommendations, 
any plans developed for implementation, and all infrastructure 
costs anticipated as a result of implementation.

Section 327--Guidance for Performance of Civilian Personnel Work Under 
            Air Force Civilian Personnel Consolidation Plan

    This section would provide guidance to the Air Force as it 
proceeds with its consolidation of personnel management 
functions. This section would require that the Air Force, in 
making determinations, consider the size and complexity of the 
civilian workforce and the impact that any consolidation may 
have on accomplishment of the mission at an installation. This 
section describes certain functions being performed at large 
civilian centers that may not be included in any personnel 
management consolidation.

  Section 328--Report on Reduction in Number of Fire Fighters on Air 
                              Force Bases

    This section would require a report by the Secretary of the 
Air Force on the effect of the reduction in fire fighters on 
Air Force bases as a result of Program Budget Decision (PBD) 
720. The report would include an evaluation of risks, if any, 
associated with the reductions and the adequacy of fire 
fighting capabilities within the surrounding communities to 
respond to an aircraft fire. Additionally, the section requires 
a plan to restore personnel if it is determined that PBD 720 
negatively impacted the mission. The report would be submitted 
to Congress within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

                      Subtitle D--Energy Security


    Section 331--Annual Report on Operational Energy Management and 
             Implementation of Operational Energy Strategy

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting 
through the Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs 
as established within title IX of this Act, to submit an annual 
operational energy management report to the congressional 
defense committees on operational energy consumption and 
initiatives. The committee is aware that buildings and 
facilities account for approximately one quarter of the 
Department of Defense's annual energy consumption, and the 
remaining three-quarters of the energy consumption is for 
operational purposes. While the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Installations and Environment produces an annual 
energy management report for installations, no similar product 
exists for energy required to support military operations. This 
section seeks to correct this apparent reporting disparity.

 Section 332--Consideration of Fuel Logistics Support Requirements in 
     Planning, Requirements Development, and Acquisition Processes

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
consider the fully-burdened cost of fuel and energy efficiency 
in planning, capability requirements development, and 
acquisition processes. This section would require the Secretary 
to prepare a plan for implementation of the requirements of 
this section within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act. Lastly, this section would establish a deadline for 
implementation of within three years of the date of enactment 
of this Act.

    Section 333--Study on Solar Energy for Use at Forward Operating 
                               Locations

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the feasibility of using solar energy to 
provide electricity at forward operating locations. The report 
shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2009.

               Section 334--Study on Coal-to-Liquid Fuels

    This section would require a study on alternatives to 
reduce the life cycle emissions of coal-to-liquid fuels. The 
study shall be conducted by a federally funded research and 
development center and shall be submitted to the congressional 
defense committees and the Secretary of Defense by March 1, 
2009.

                          Subtitle E--Reports


  Section 341--Comptroller General Report on Readiness of Armed Forces

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a report on 
the readiness of the regular and reserve components of the 
armed forces. The committee is concerned with the state of 
readiness of the armed forces and requires this review to 
determine the current state of readiness and what actions the 
services are taking to increase their readiness posture.

 Section 342--Report on Plan to Enhance Combat Skills of Navy and Air 
                            Force Personnel

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the plans of the Secretary of the Navy and 
the Secretary of the Air Force to improve the combat skills of 
the members of the Navy and the Air Force, respectively. The 
committee is concerned about combat training being conducted by 
the Navy and the Air Force, both in support of the current 
operations and as the services posture themselves for future 
missions. Ground combat training is already being conducted by 
the Army and Marine Corps to a high level of proficiency on 
installations with robust infrastructure to support this type 
of training. The committee is concerned that the Navy and Air 
Force will seek to duplicate training facilities and schools 
without maximizing the use of existing expertise and 
infrastructure. The committee strongly urges the Secretary of 
Defense to oversee this expansion of combat training to ensure 
that the services do not reinvent existing capabilities or 
create multiple standards for ground combat operations.

Section 343--Comptroller General Report on the Use of the Army Reserve 
              and National Guard as an Operational Reserve

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to submit a report to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the 
use of the Army Reserve and National Guard forces as an 
operational reserve. This report would include a description of 
current and programmed resources, force structure, and 
organizational challenges that the Army Reserve and National 
Guard forces may face serving as an operational reserve. This 
would include an examination of:
          (1) Equipment availability, maintenance, and 
        logistics issues;
          (2) Manning and force structure;
          (3) Training constraints limiting facilities and 
        ranges, access to military schools and skill training, 
        or access to the Combat Training Centers; and
          (4) Any conflicts with requirements under title 32, 
        United States Code.
    The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves noted 
that Congress should examine the use of the reserve forces as 
an operational reserve. The committee recognizes that the 
expanded use of the Army Reserve and National Guard may require 
an additional investment by the Army to meet their training, 
manpower, and equipment needs. This report would assist the 
committee in understanding those needs in making future policy 
and resourcing decisions.

Section 344--Comptroller General Report on Link Between Preparation and 
   Use of Army Reserve Component Forces to Support Ongoing Operations

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to analyze and report on the preparation and 
operational use of the Army's reserve component forces. The 
report shall contain an analysis of the Army's ability to train 
and employ reserve units for both wartime missions and non-
traditional missions to which the units are assigned. The 
report shall also consider how mobilization and deployment 
laws, goals, and policies impact the Army's ability to train 
and employ reserve component units for combat or non-combat 
missions. The committee would like to ensure that the Army's 
reserve component units are receiving all required training and 
resources prior to employment in combat. Ongoing combat 
operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan have required the re-missioning of many types of 
units. This report would examine the employment of reserve 
units to determine if there are any factors limiting the 
preparation of these units for ongoing operations.

    Section 345--Comptroller General Report on Adequacy of Funding, 
Staffing, and Organization of Department of Defense Military Munitions 
                            Response Program

    This section would require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to report on the adequacy of the funding, 
staffing, and organization of the Department of Defense's 
Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP). The report would 
also include an assessment of the MMRP mechanisms for the 
accountability, reporting, and monitoring of the progress of 
munitions response projects and suggested methods to reduce the 
time such projects take to complete. This report would be 
submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within one year after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

  Section 346--Report on Options for Providing Repair Capabilities to 
                   Support Ships Operating Near Guam

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
estimate the requirement for voyage repairs to U.S. Navy 
vessels operating at or near Guam. Additionally, this section 
would require the Secretary to assess voyage repair options for 
ships operating at or near Guam, including the anticipated 
costs and strategic and operational risks associated with each 
option. The Secretary shall report by March 1, 2009, to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services on the voyage repair options along with the plan 
and schedule for implementing a course of action to ensure that 
the required voyage repair capability will be available by 
October 2012, in order to support the relocation of U.S. 
military forces from Okinawa to Guam.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


    Section 351--Extension of Enterprise Transition Plan Reporting 
                              Requirement

    This section would extend the requirement for the Business 
Transformation Agency to report to Congress on the Enterprise 
Transition Plan for the Department of Defense until 2013. 
Without legislative action, that requirement would currently 
expire in 2009.

Section 352--Demilitarization of Loaned, Given, or Exchanged Documents, 
    Historical Artifacts, and Condemned or Obsolete Combat Materiel

    This section would amend section 2572, title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify that any item authorized to be donated 
under this section should be considered as demilitarized 
materiel and made unserviceable in the interest of public 
safety.

Section 353--Repeal of Requirement that Secretary of Air Force Provide 
  Training and Support to Other Military Departments for A-10 Aircraft

    This section would repeal outdated language regarding fleet 
support and depot maintenance for A-10 aircraft. The committee 
notes that there are no Department of Defense users of A-10 
aircraft other than the Department of the Air Force, nor are 
there plans for any in the future.

Section 354--Display of Annual Budget Requirements for Air Sovereignty 
                             Alert Mission

    This section would require a consolidated budget 
justification by the Secretary of Defense on all programs and 
activities for the Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) mission of the 
U.S. Air Force. The report would be submitted to Congress as 
part of the defense budget materials for each fiscal year. The 
committee is aware that while the Air National Guard has 
volunteered to undertake this critical mission, funds for the 
program must come from the active duty Air Force accounts and 
have not been properly prioritized or allocated on a timely 
basis. This has led to a 34 percent shortfall for the ASA 
mission for Fiscal Year 2009. This section would facilitate the 
committee's oversight to ensure sufficient resources are 
budgeted to fully execute this priority mission.

  Section 355--Sense of Congress that Air Sovereignty Alert Missions 
            Should Receive Sufficient Funding and Resources

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Air Force should ensure that the air sovereignty alert mission 
of the Air National Guard is provided with the necessary 
resources to perform this priority mission. The committee also 
proposes a provision, at section 354 of this Act, which would 
require a consolidated budget justification by the Secretary of 
Defense on all programs and activities for the air sovereignty 
alert mission of the U.S. Air Force.

    Section 356--Revision of Certain Air Force Regulations Required

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to bring the Air Freight Transportation Regulation No. 5, 
issued by the Air Mobility Command, into full compliance with 
Department of Defense transportation regulations requiring 
commercial best practices.

  Section 357--Transfer of C-12 Aircraft to California Department of 
                      Forestry and Fire Protection

    This provision would allow the Secretary of the Army to 
transfer three surplus C-12 aircraft to the California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection at no cost to the 
United States.

   Section 358--Availability of Funds for Irregular Warfare Support 
                                Program

    This section would require as much as $75.0 million to be 
made available for the Irregular Warfare Support (IWS) program 
from funds made available for the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) in fiscal year 2009.
    The committee applauds the achievements resulting from the 
IWS-JIEDDO collaborative partnership in support of both 
unconventional and irregular approaches to warfare. The 
committee further applauds JIEDDO's practice of leveraging IWS 
initiatives to thwart the threat of improvised explosive 
devices. The committee believes that the IWS program has both 
the promise and potential to make a greater contribution in 
pursuit of national security objectives.
    The committee notes that the Irregular Warfare Support 
program leverages ongoing research efforts at Special 
Operations Command and other parts of the federal government to 
analyze, modify, design, and demonstrate enduring technical and 
operational capabilities. Promising projects include: counter-
motivation, counter-enterprise, counter-infrastructure, 
counter-financing, and sanctuary-denial methodologies for the 
tactical and operational warfighter. IWS personnel and agents 
alternatively provide both a mentoring and a support role to 
uniformed personnel performing in the field or in analytical 
and command positions. The committee supports efforts to 
further mature this concept.
    A separate provision in title IX of this Act requires the 
Secretary of Defense to designate an Assistant Secretary of 
Defense to be responsible for overall management and 
coordination of irregular warfare. The committee believes 
funding certainty, programmatic stabilization, and a more 
focused management regime would enhance and improve future IWS 
activities and strategies. The committee believes the 
designation of a responsible assistant secretary will provide 
appropriate and necessary management oversight. The committee 
also strongly believes appropriate management and funding 
certainty is necessary to improve and properly focus the 
Department's efforts. As a result, the committee further urges 
the Department to provide stable and adequate funding levels 
beyond fiscal year 2009 and submit them to the congressional 
defense committees for consideration.

    Section 359--Sense of Congress Regarding Procurement and Use of 
                               Munitions

    This section would express the sense of the committee that 
the Department of Defense should develop methods to account for 
the full life-cycle costs of munitions, including the cost of 
failure rates on the cost of disposal. This provision also 
suggests that the Department review live-fire training 
practices to reduce munitions-constituent contamination. 
Military readiness should remain the prime consideration in the 
procurement and use of munitions and ammunition.
    The committee is aware of the high cost of cleaning up 
munitions constituent contamination on ranges and formerly used 
defense sites in the United States. A review and modification 
of procurement and use of military munitions with the intention 
of limiting future contamination may also reduce the cost of 
future munitions-constituent remediation.

 Section 360--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Air Combat Command 
                        Management Headquarters

    This section would prohibit the Commander, Air Combat 
Command from obligating each quarter in fiscal year 2009 more 
than 80 percent of the average obligation of the preceding 
fiscal year's corresponding quarter until the Secretary of the 
Air Force complies with section 137 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
and the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional 
defense committees that the Department will program funding in 
the Air Force Future Years Defense Plan for 76, commonly 
configured B-52 aircraft by the submission of the fiscal year 
2010 President's budget request to Congress.

  Section 361--Increase of Domestic Sourcing of Military Working Dogs 
                   Used by the Department of Defense

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting 
through the Executive Agent for Military Working Dogs, to 
identify the Department of Defense's requirements for military 
working dogs and take steps to ensure that this requirement is 
met. This section would require the Department to coordinate 
with federal, state, or local agencies as well as nonprofit 
organizations, universities, or private sector entities to 
increase the training capacity for military working dog teams. 
This section also would require the Secretary work toward the 
goal of procuring all military working dogs from domestic 
breeders while maintaining quality and best value for the U.S. 
Government.

              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, and to accelerate efforts to 
increase the permanent end strength for the Army in fiscal year 
2009 by 5,100. The committee also recognizes the Secretary for 
his efforts to include the cost of the permanent end strength 
increase within the base budget in fiscal year 2009. The 
committee is pleased that the Department of Defense finally 
recognizes the importance of increasing the end strength of the 
Army and the Marine Corps to meet current operational 
requirements placed on these services. The increase in end 
strength for the Army and the Marine Corps will help reduce the 
pressure on the current forces and will hopefully reduce the 
deployment lengths for the Army as well as reduce the number of 
deployments for service members.
    The committee remains concerned that, despite the 
requirement in section 721 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) 
that prohibited further military-to-civilian conversions within 
the military health care system, the President's budget request 
included further conversions and failed to provide funds to 
support the restoration of military positions that are required 
by law. Congress took this vital action because of the concerns 
that such conversions are having an adverse impact on access 
and quality of care being provided to service members and their 
families. The committee continues to hear directly from 
military families who face difficulties accessing care at 
military treatment facilities. The committee expects the 
services to meet both the intent and spirit of the law, and 
restore the military medical positions that are proposed for 
conversion in fiscal year 2009, restore positions that were 
converted in earlier years that have not been filled as of 
October 1, 2008, and plan and budget accordingly to restore 
military positions that were proposed for conversion beginning 
in October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2012, as required by 
law. In order to ensure that the intent of the law is met, the 
committee extends the current prohibition of conversion within 
title VII of this Act.

                         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, 2009:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2008              FY 2009                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2009      FY 2008
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................      525,400      532,400        532,400             0        7,000
Navy........................................      329,098      325,300        326,323         1,023       -2,775
USMC........................................      189,000      194,000        194,000             0        5,000
Air Force...................................      329,563      316,600        317,050           450      -12,513
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...............................    1,373,061    1,368,300      1,369,773         1,473       -3,288
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee recognizes that the delayed passage of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181) had an effect on restoring the military-to-
civilian positions within the military medical community. 
However, the law prohibits conversions within the military 
medical community, and the committee expects the Department of 
Defense to comply fully with the law in its fiscal year 2010 
budget submission. In order to ensure that the Department meets 
the requirements in fiscal year 2009, the committee increases 
the active duty end strength for the Navy by 1,023 and the Air 
Force by 450. The budget request already provides an increase 
of 7,000 for the Army from which the committee expects the Army 
to restore military medical positions in response to the 
prohibition.

  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, 2009. The committee recommends 532,400 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Army, 326,323 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Navy, 194,000 as the 
minimum active duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 
317,050 as the minimum active duty end strength for the Air 
Force.

                       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, 2009:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2008              FY 2009                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2009      FY 2008
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................      351,300      352,600        352,600             0        1,300
Army Reserve................................      205,000      205,000        205,000             0            0
Navy Reserve................................       67,800       66,700         66,700             0       -1,100
Marine Corps Reserve........................       39,600       39,600         39,600             0            0
Air National Guard..........................      106,700      106,700        106,700             0            0
Air Force Reserve...........................       67,500       67,400         67,400             0         -100
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...............................      837,900      838,000        838,000             0          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Reserve.........................       10,000       10,000         10,000             0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of 
September 30, 2009:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2008              FY 2009                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2009      FY 2008
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................       29,204       29,950         32,060         2,110        2,856
Army Reserve................................       15,870       16,170         17,070           900        1,200
Naval Reserve...............................       11,579       11,099         11,099             0         -480
Marine Corps Reserve........................        2,261        2,261          2,261             0            0
Air National Guard..........................       13,936       14,337         14,337             0          401
Air Force Reserve...........................        2,721        2,733          2,733             0           12
    DOD Total...............................       75,571       76,550         77,200           650          979
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee recognizes the increasing requirements on 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve for full-time support 
personnel given the transformation of those components from a 
strategic reserve to an operational reserve. The committee, 
therefore, recommends an increase above the budget request for 
reserves on active duty of 2,110 for the Army National Guard 
and 900 for the Army Reserves to support the reserves.

   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, 
2009:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2008              FY 2009                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2009      FY 2008
                                               Authorized    Request    Recommendation    Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................       26,502       27,210         27,210             0          708
Army Reserve................................        8,249        8,395          8,395             0          146
Air National Guard..........................       22,553       22,452         22,452             0         -101
Air Force Reserve...........................        9,909       10,003         10,003             0           94
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...............................       67,213       68,060         68,060             0          847
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 414--Fiscal Year 2009 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, 2009:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2008              FY 2009                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2009      FY 2008
                                               Authorized    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 2009 to provide 
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count 
against the end strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY 2008              FY 2009                   Change from
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                                                 Committee      FY 2009      FY 2008
                                               Authorized    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--Additional Waiver Authority of Limitation on Number of 
       Reserve Component Members Authorized to be on Active Duty

    This section would amend section 123a of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the President to waive the 
limitations on the number of reserve component personnel who 
can be on active duty for operational support under section 115 
of title 10, United States Code. This waiver authority would 
allow a surge of reserve component members to be on active duty 
voluntarily to respond to a major disaster or emergency. A 
Presidential waiver granted under this provision would extend 
until 90 days after such major disaster or emergency is 
determined to be terminated.

              Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations


                    Section 421--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize $124.7 billion 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:


                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues its ongoing efforts to provide 
greater flexibility to for officer and reserve personnel 
management. The committee supports efforts to establish a 
career intermission pilot program that would allow those who 
are seeking a military career time off from active duty for a 
period of several years in order to pursue other life 
achievements and a return to military service without penalty. 
The committee commends the Army for its support of the Early 
Commissioning Program and is encouraged to learn that the Army 
expects to provide an appropriate level of funding for this 
program in future budget requests to assist in increasing the 
number of junior officers within the Army.
    The committee commends the service military educational 
institutions for incorporating lessons learned from the 
preparation and execution of military strategy in Iraq into 
their curriculum. The committee encourages the services to 
continue their efforts to improve the educational and training 
courses for their students that build up on lessons learned.
    The committee continues efforts to improve the quality of 
life for service members and their families and recognizes the 
personal contributions that those who are serving in uniform 
are making. Just as importantly, the committee acknowledges the 
sacrifices their families are making in support of current 
operations. The committee recommends additional funding to help 
local educational agencies who are providing support to 
military children by 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.
    Efforts to provide greater support to military spouses and 
dependents continues to be a focus for the committee, which has 
provided education and training opportunities for military 
spouses who are seeking degrees or careers that will be 
portable as they move from duty station to duty station with 
their military member. The committee also remains committed to 
enhancing and improving programs and policies that support 
military families, particularly those of deployed service 
members. The committee notes that there are numerous innovative 
and novel programs that are being developed and proposed by 
organizations that wish to support military families. Programs 
such as Coming Together Around Military Families, Family 
Support Training Programs and Centers for National Guard and 
Reserves, Franklin Covey, Project SOAR, and Project Navigate 
are just a few of such programs that have been brought to the 
committee's attention. The committee believes that there are a 
number of worthwhile family support programs that should be 
considered and recommends an increase of $15.0 million for 
family support programs.
    In addition, the committee commends the Army and the 
Marines Corps for recognizing the importance of family support 
to military readiness. The Army's Family Covenant sends an 
important message to our soldiers and their families, and the 
Marine Corps has also made improvements to their family support 
programs. Both services have recognized that additional full-
time support personnel are needed to help alleviate the burden 
being placed on families, particularly volunteers who have 
carried a heavy load during these last several years. The 
committee is pleased that the Army and Marine Corps are moving 
forward to address the needs of their families, and urges the 
Secretaries of the Navy and the Air Force to review their 
family support programs, and assess the demand for additional 
full-time personnel to support families and to budget 
accordingly for such additional requirements, if necessary. The 
committee is particularly concerned with the support that is 
being provided to individual augmentees who are deployed in a 
contingency operation and their families within the Navy and 
Air Force and advises that these individuals and their families 
be afforded the support that they need. The committee also 
urges all the services to ensure that similar levels of support 
are being provided to their reserve component members and 
families, as also recommended by the Commission on National 
Guard and Reserves.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


         Advance Deployment Notice to Reserve Component Members

    The committee notes that section 515 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) requires the secretary of a military department to 
provide, as is practicable, notification to reserve component 
members not less than 30 days before being called or ordered to 
active duty for a period of more than 30 days, with a goal of 
90 days. This provision allows the Secretary of Defense to 
waive the notification requirement and requires the Secretary 
to submit to Congress a report detailing the reason for the 
waiver. The committee is concerned that while it has not 
received any waivers from the Secretary, it is unclear whether 
there are established procedures or policies that would provide 
the Secretary the oversight necessary to comply with the 
provision of law.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the current procedures and/or policies to ensure that the 
services are complying with the law, and provide the committee 
a summary of the number of reserve component members who have 
been notified of a mobilization since the enactment of Public 
Law 110-181, and of those notified how many had received their 
notification 30, 90, or more than 90 days prior to 
mobilization. The report shall also include the number of 
reservists who were provided less than 30 days notification, 
along with a detailed reason on why the 30 day notification 
requirement could not be met, and whether a waiver was provided 
by the Secretary. 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 on the results 
of the review by March 31, 2009.

                 Air Force Academy Athletic Association

    The committee sees great promise in the respective 
constructs of the athletic associations of the Naval Academy 
and West Point. To improve the ability of the Air Force Academy 
Athletic Association (AFAAA) to support the Academy's mission 
of building future Air Force leaders of character and to 
provide for the maximum benefit of the Air Force Academy and 
its cadets, the committee believes changes should be made in 
the oversight, management, and fundraising ability of the 
AFAAA. Therefore, the committee directs the Air Force to 
establish the AFAAA as a non-profit entity with all profits and 
proceeds going directly back into the Academy itself. The Air 
Force Academy will implement this directive as expeditiously as 
possible, with the implementation completed within 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act. One objective of the 
non-profit entity should be to raise funds through such 
initiatives as admission tickets, concession item and apparel 
sales, licensing trademarks, commercial sponsorships and 
partnerships, radio and television rights revenue, accepting 
gifts and other means appropriate to an intercollegiate sports 
program and use those funds in support of the Academy. If 
additional statutory authority is required to achieve the 
objectives of the AFAAA as a non-profit entity, the Secretary 
of the Air Force should submit those proposals to Congress by 
March 1, 2009. Furthermore, the committee directs that this 
non-profit entity be governed by a board of directors made up 
of at least nine members. The Director of Athletics shall be a 
standing member of the board and serve as chairman. The 
Superintendent will appoint the remaining members of the board, 
which may include a cadet representative and will include at 
least one Air Force Academy alumnus with no current official 
ties to the Academy, after receiving the approval of the 
Secretary of the Air Force for each individual appointment. The 
Secretary of the Air Force will ensure oversight of the 
activities of the Association.

  Competitions to Provide Unofficial Information Services to Service 
                                Members

    The committee has learned that competition between morale, 
welfare, and recreation (MWR) activities and the military 
exchange services to provide unofficial information services 
(such as internet access, internet cafes, recreational gaming, 
cable television, and wireless internet services), has become 
disruptive and counterproductive. The committee needs a better 
understanding of the status of the current situation, the 
circumstances and conditions that led to the current situation, 
and the requirements of regulations and law regarding the 
provision of such services on military installations and to 
military personnel residing off the installation. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prohibit new 
competitions for unofficial information services to be 
undertaken after the date of enactment of this Act until the 
Secretary reviews the applicable regulations and laws, 
clarifies what constitutes unofficial information services, and 
defines the roles and functions of MWR activities and the 
military exchange systems in providing such information 
services. The committee directs the Secretary to report his 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

        Financial Counseling for Homeowners in the Armed Forces

    The committee is concerned that the recent nationwide 
mortgage housing crisis may also be affecting the men and women 
of the armed forces. These people and their families purchase 
homes in communities in which they are stationed. 
Unfortunately, unlike many civilian homeowners in the United 
States, military homeowners are frequently forced to move to 
different bases within the United States and even overseas to 
meet the needs of their respective services. In this current 
housing environment, these required permanent changes of 
station can result in military homeowners having to sell their 
homes at a loss. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense 
to develop and implement an information program for members of 
the armed forces, including members of the National Guard and 
reserves, who are returning from deployment or are facing a 
permanent change of station, that would advise members of 
actions that can be taken to protect themselves from the 
financial impacts of owning and maintaining a home. The 
information provided should also include actions that can be 
taken to prevent or forestall mortgage foreclosures, 
information on credit counseling, home mortgage counseling, and 
other information the Secretary considers appropriate.

                 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
has funded additional questions within previous versions of the 
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth sponsored by the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. The committee believes that these surveys 
provide important information to Department of Defense 
recruiting and retention managers and to Congress on attitudes, 
motivations, qualifications, experiences, and income as the 
cohorts move through the stages of life. The committee notes 
that the nation is overdue to initiate a new study because the 
most recent cohort was initiated over 10 years ago in 1997. The 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to request that a new 
cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth be launched 
by 2010 and that the Secretary promote the initiative by 
committing resources to support aspects of the survey of 
particular interest to the Department.

             Report on Duty Status of the Reserve Component

    The Commission on National Guard and Reserves issued its 
final report on January 31st of this year. The commission found 
that today's reservists are managed under 29 different and 
distinct statuses that are confusing and frustrating to reserve 
component members and their commanders. The committee has heard 
the challenges reserve members face to meet mission 
requirements when transitioning from one duty status to 
another. Unfortunately, reserve component members and their 
families are often times caught in the middle of transitions in 
which pay and benefits change from one duty status to another.
    The greater utilization of reserve component members to 
meet operational requirements requires simple and 
straightforward management. The commission recommended that the 
29 duty statuses be reduced to 2--title 10 or title 32 status. 
However, reducing the number of duty statuses brings numerous 
challenges that were not specifically addressed by the 
commission. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
undertake a review of all the duty statuses currently being 
used by the services and the Department and to provide a 
strategic plan that would significantly reduce the number of 
duty statuses to allow for a clear, simple structure under 
which reserve members are called to serve. The committee 
directs the Secretary to report the results of the review, and 
a strategic plan, along with any recommendations for 
modification to the current law that may be necessary to reduce 
the duty statuses of reserve component members to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2009.

   Review of Full-Time Manning for the Army National Guard and Army 
                                Reserves

    The committee notes the importance of full-time manning, 
which includes active guard and reserve personnel, as well as 
military technicians, to the training, readiness and 
performance of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, 
particularly during times of increased operational tempo. Both 
the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve have become 
operational reserves and the requirements for full time manning 
can be expected to increase over present levels. The committee 
does not believe the full-time manning for either the Army 
Guard or the Army Reserve is adequate. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Army to review the projected five-
year requirements for Army National Guard and Army Reserve 
full-time manning and implement a plan to increase full-time 
manning in both those components to the required levels. The 
Secretary of the Army shall report the results of his review 
and implementation plan to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by April 1, 
2009.

              Review of Reserve Officer Joint Requirements

    The committee notes that the budget request included a 
legislative proposal to increase the controlled grade limit for 
lieutenant colonels serving in a full-time support capacity in 
the Marine Corps Reserve. The proposal was included by the 
committee in section 512 of this Act. The documentation 
submitted to support this proposal cited growth in full-time 
lieutenant colonel requirements in a variety of headquarters 
staffs caused by the expansion of reserve component roles to 
encompass missions that traditionally were reserved for the 
active components. The committee is concerned that this 
increase in demand for more senior officers with greater 
experience is a trend that affects all the reserve components 
and that the current authorized levels of senior officer full-
time support are inadequate to meet operational requirements 
across the reserve forces. The committee is also concerned that 
in the case of the Marine Corps Reserve, there has been a 
deliberate decision to sacrifice critical positions authorized 
for the grade of major in an effort to increase the number of 
lieutenant colonel positions that are considered a higher 
priority. The committee fears that the Marine Corps Reserve may 
have traded one controlled grade problem for another that will 
become apparent when it realizes that there are insufficient 
numbers of majors to support missions.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to study the full-time support controlled grade requirements 
within all the reserve components to determine if the number of 
authorizations is adequate to meet mission requirements in this 
era of increasing activity of our reserve forces. Specifically, 
the committee directs the Secretary to examine the number of 
full-time support authorizations in the grade of major within 
the Marine Corps Reserve to determine if the reduction in 
positions was an appropriate management decision. The Secretary 
shall report his findings and recommendations to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2009.

                Searchable Military Decorations Database

    The committee notes that there have been a number of 
examples of individuals in recent years who have fraudulently 
claimed to have been awarded the Medal of Honor or other 
decorations of valor. The committee believes that the frequency 
of such incidents could be reduced and the prestige of all 
military valor decorations preserved if the general public was 
afforded access to a searchable database listing those 
individuals who have been awarded decorations for valor.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
potential for establishing a searchable database listing 
individuals who have been awarded military medals for valor. 
The Secretary shall consider the cost of the database, the 
administrative challenges in assembling the database, the 
implications for the privacy of the individuals listed in the 
database, and the options for the general public to gain access 
to the database. The Secretary shall also consider the 
feasibility of listing recipients of multiple valor decorations 
in the database, but shall, at a minimum, report his findings 
regarding feasibility of a database that only includes 
recipients of the Medal of Honor. The Secretary shall report 
his findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
March 31, 2009.

      Strategic Plan to Address Science, Technology, Engineering, 
                       Mathematics, and Education

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
lacks a strategic plan to address the growing shortages in 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
professions, both military and civilian, within the services 
and other Departmental agencies. The committee is concerned 
that the nation is facing an increasing shortage of qualified 
STEM professionals, directly impacting our national security. 
The committee further notes that one of the top recommendations 
from the 2007 National Academy of Science report, ``Rising 
Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for 
a Brighter Economic Future,'' is for increasing America's 
talent pool by improving primary and secondary math and science 
education. The committee is aware that the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense and the military services all have 
numerous STEM programs, but is concerned that these programs 
lack the coherent and coordinated approach necessary to address 
STEM issues across the Department of Defense.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
study on this issue, including an assessment of all the 
programs within the military services, defense agencies, and 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense that encourage, assist, 
and maintain individuals to pursue an interest in STEM. At a 
minimum, the study shall include a description of each program, 
the target students or employee range, the period of the 
program, the amount requested and expended, the numbers of 
individuals impacted, and other appropriate metrics. The study 
should also address how each program adds to the continuum of 
education from kindergarten through high school, as well as 
post-secondary through graduate and post-graduate education. 
The study should include at a minimum review of STARBASE, the 
STEM Learning Modules, eCybermission, as well as efforts within 
Senior Reserve Officer Training (ROTC) programs that provide a 
continuum approach to STEM education. In addition, the study 
shall provide a plan that documents the Department's 
coordinated efforts toward addressing the declining science, 
engineering, and technical workforce. The study shall also 
include recommendations, if any, for the enhancement and 
coordination of STEM programs within the Department. The 
committee directs the Secretary to submit his findings to the 
congressional defense committees by March 31, 2009.

               Youth Information in Recruiting Databases

    The committee is concerned about the procedures employed by 
the Department in managing databases that include youth 
information. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
verify that well-publicized and efficient procedures are 
available to youth or parents or the guardian of the youth to 
remove information from all Department of Defense recruiting 
databases and to protect youth from unsolicited contact by any 
Department of Defense recruiting agency. In addition, the 
committee directs the Secretary to verify that all information 
maintained on youth in Department of Defense recruiting 
databases are carefully managed to ensure that youth 
information is not released to any agency outside of the 
Department and that it is only used to support recruiting 
programs within the Department. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on his findings and 
remedial actions, if any, to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 
2009.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy Generally


  Section 501--Mandatory Separation Requirements for Regular Warrant 
                     Officers for Length of Service

    This section would establish 60 days following completion 
of 30 years of active service as the mandatory retirement date 
for warrant officers in all components, except the Army, which 
would establish the mandatory retirement for warrant officers 
based on 30 years of active service as a warrant officer.

 Section 502--Requirements for Issuance of Posthumous Commissions and 
                                Warrants

    This section would eliminate the requirement for a line of 
duty determination to be conducted before a posthumous 
promotion to a commissioned or warrant grade could be conferred 
and would substitute the requirement for the secretary 
concerned to certify that the service member was qualified for 
appointment to the higher grade.

Section 503--Extension of Authority to Reduce Minimum Length of Active 
        Service Required for Voluntary Retirement as an Officer

    This section would extend the period during which the 
Secretary of Defense may authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to lower the years of officer service 
required before a member may be retired as an officer from a 
minimum of 10 years to a minimum of 8 years. This section would 
authorize the approval of retirement as an officer with a 
minimum of eight years of service during fiscal year 2014.

   Section 504--Increase in Authorized Number of General Officers on 
                    Active Duty in the Marine Corps

    This section would amend sections 525 and 526 of title 10, 
United States Code, to allow an increase of one general officer 
in the rank of Lieutenant General for the Marine Corps

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management


  Section 511--Extension to All Military Departments of Authority to 
    Defer Mandatory Separation of Military Technicians (Dual Status)

    This section would extend to the Secretary of the Air Force 
the same authority previously granted to the Secretary of the 
Army to delay mandatory separation of dual status military 
technicians for years of service or other policy consideration 
until age 60.

Section 512--Increase in Authorized Strengths for Marine Corps Reserve 
 Officers on Active Duty in the Grades of Major and Lieutenant Colonel 
                  to Meet Force Structure Requirements

    This section would increase the number of full-time 
lieutenant colonels in the Marine Corps Reserve by seven. This 
section would not increase the overall number of officers in 
controlled grades because the proposal would decrease the 
number of majors to offset the growth in lieutenant colonels.

   Section 513--Clarification of Authority to Consider for a Vacancy 
Promotion National Guard Officers Ordered to Active Duty in Support of 
                        a Contingency Operation

    This section would amend section 14317 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize national guard officers to be 
considered for promotion when they are ordered to or are 
serving on active duty in support of a contingency operation. 
At present, only Army and Air Force Reserve officers are 
allowed to be considered for vacancy promotions when ordered to 
or are serving on active duty in support of a contingency 
operation. This section would also clarify that national guard 
and reserve officers who are ordered to or who are on active 
duty in support of a contingency operation may be promoted 
against vacancies other than those that exist in the unit with 
which they were ordered to active duty.

 Section 514--Increase in Mandatory Retirement Age for Certain Reserve 
                                Officers

    This section would clarify that reserve officers assigned 
to duties with the Selective Service System, as National Guard 
property and fiscal officers, or with a State headquarters 
staff of the Army National Guard, may be retained in an active 
status until age 62. This section would make the mandatory 
retirement age for these officers consistent with the 
retirement age set for other active duty and reserve officers.

  Section 515--Age Limit for Retention of Certain Reserve Officers on 
 Active-Status List as Exception to Removal for Years of Commissioned 
                                Service

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army and 
the Secretary of the Air Force to retain reserve officers in 
the grade of lieutenant general beyond mandatory retirement for 
years of service until the officer becomes 66 years of age.

  Section 516--Authority to Retain Reserve Chaplains and Officers in 
              Medical and Related Specialties until Age 68

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to retain reserve component chaplains and 
officers serving in health profession specialties until age 68. 
The section would also clarify that chaplains and officers 
serving in health profession specialties in the National Guard 
may also be retained until age 68.

 Section 517--Study and Report Regarding Personnel Movements in Marine 
                     Corps Individual Ready Reserve

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
conduct a study on how the Marine Corps Reserve moves personnel 
in and out of the Individual Ready Reserve.

         Subtitle C--Joint Qualified Officers and Requirements


 Section 521--Joint Duty Requirements for Promotion to General or Flag 
                                Officer

    This section would amend section 619a of title 10, United 
States Code, to reflect the changes made to section 661 of 
title 10, United States Code, by section 516 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364).

   Section 522--Technical, Conforming, and Clerical Changes to Joint 
                         Specialty Terminology

    This section would amend the terminology used in sections 
663, 665, and 667 of title 10, United States Code, to 
correspond with changes made to section 661 of title 10, United 
States Code, in section 516 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 
Specifically, this section would replace references to ``Joint 
Specialty Officer'' with ``Joint Qualified Officer.'' It would 
also modify the reporting requirement in section 667 of title 
10, United States Code, to correspond with changes made in 
section 516 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).

 Section 523--Promotion Policy Objectives for Joint Qualified Officers

    This section would amend section 662 of title 10, United 
States Code, to comport with the standard in section 619a of 
title 10, United States Code, which goes into effect on October 
1, 2008, so that officers must be a Joint Specialty Officer/
Joint Qualified Officer to be appointed to the grade of O-7. 
This section also would simplify the promotion objectives as 
applied under the new Joint Qualification System that 
acknowledges all joint experiences no matter where they occur.

             Section 524--Length of Joint Duty Assignments

    This section would bring guidance regarding joint duty 
assignment lengths and exceptions in line with the Joint 
Qualification System developed by the Department of Defense as 
directed in section 516 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).

Section 525--Designation of General and Flag Officer Positions on Joint 
    Staff as Positions to be Held Only by Reserve Component Officers

    This section would amend section 526 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to exempt up to three reserve general and flag officers from 
counting against the general and flag officer limitations.

   Section 526--Treatment of Certain Service as Joint Duty Experience

    This section would require that services of an officer as 
an adjutant general of the National Guard of a state, be 
treated as joint duty or joint duty experience for purposes of 
any provision of law requiring such duty or experience as a 
condition of assignment or promotion. This section would 
require the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to issue a 
report by April 1, 2009, with recommendations to the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding which duty of officers 
of the National Guard in the Joint Force Headquarters of the 
National Guard of the states should qualify as joint duty or 
joint duty experience. This section would also require that the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff submit a report to 
Congress by April 1, 2009, April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2011 on 
information regarding the joint educational courses available 
through the Department.
    This section would require that the Commander of United 
States Northern Command, the Commander of United States Pacific 
Command and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, with the 
approval of the Secretary of Defense, jointly enter into a 
memorandum of understanding describing the operational 
relationships, and roles and responsibilities during domestic 
emergencies.
    This section would also require that the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau, to conduct a review of the role of the Department in 
the defense of the homeland and issue a report of that review 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee 
on Armed Services by April 1, 2009.

                Subtitle D--General Service Authorities


     Section 531--Increase in Authorized Maximum Reenlistment Term

    This section would increase the authorized maximum 
reenlistment term from six years to eight years.

             Section 532--Career Intermission Pilot Program

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to conduct a pilot program under which an 
officer or enlisted member may be released from active duty for 
a maximum of three years to encourage retention by allowing 
members to focus on personal and professional goals and 
responsibilities for a temporary period. This section would 
authorize separations to occur during the period from January 
1, 2009, to December 31, 2014, and would allow the total number 
of members selected annually from each armed force to be 
limited to 20 members. Participation in the program would 
require members to enlist in the Ready Reserve and report 
monthly to military authorities during the intermission period, 
and to agree to serve on active duty in a regular or reserve 
component for a period of not less than two months for every 
month of program participation following the member's return to 
active duty. During the intermission period, participating 
members and their dependents would be eligible for the same 
medical and dental care benefits as provided to active duty 
members and their families and would be issued identification 
cards to support access to commissary, exchange, and morale, 
welfare, and recreation facilities.

                   Subtitle E--Education and Training


Section 541--Repeal of Prohibition on Phased Increase in Midshipmen and 
   Cadet Strength Limit at United States Naval Academy and Air Force 
                                Academy

    This section would amend section 6954 of title 10, United 
States Code, and section 9342 of title 10, United States Code, 
to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Navy and the 
Secretary of the Air Force to increase the size of the cadets 
at United States Naval Academy and Air Force Academy by up to 
100 cadets per year to a maximum of 4,400 cadets.

 Section 542--Promotion of Foreign and Cultural Exchange Activities at 
                       Military Service Academies

    This section would amend sections 403, 603, and 903 of 
title 10, United States Code, to allow the military service 
academies to support foreign and cultural exchange programs for 
up to two weeks a year to foster the development of foreign 
language skills, cross cultural interactions and understanding, 
and cultural immersion of cadets and midshipmen.

Section 543--Compensation for Civilian President of Naval Postgraduate 
                                 School

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
compensate the civilian President of the Naval Post Graduate 
School as the Secretary prescribes, but basic pay shall not 
exceed the rate of compensation authorized for Level I of the 
Executive Schedule. This section would also limit the aggregate 
compensation to include bonuses, awards, allowances, or other 
similar compensation to the salary authorized to be paid to the 
Vice President.

 Section 544--Increased Authority to Enroll Defense Industry Employees 
                 in Defense Product Development Program

    This section would amend section 7049 of title 10, United 
States Code, to increase from 25 to 125 the number of defense 
industry employees who could receive instruction at the Naval 
Postgraduate School.

   Section 545--Requirement of Completion of Service under Honorable 
 Conditions for Purposes of Entitlement to Educational Assistance for 
      Reserve Components Members Supporting Contingency Operations

    This section would amend section 16164 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require service members to complete their 
service obligations under honorable conditions in order to 
qualify for the educational benefits under such section.

 Section 546--Consistent Education Loan Repayment Authority for Health 
        Professionals in Regular Components and Selected Reserve

    This section would authorize the same maximum limits for 
education loan repayment programs for health professionals in 
the reserve components as the maximum limits authorized for 
similar programs for active duty health professionals.

 Section 547--Increase in Number of Units of Junior Reserve Officers' 
                             Training Corps

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the secretaries of the military departments, 
to develop and implement a plan to establish and support 4,000 
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps units by fiscal year 
2020. The section would also require the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees that 
would provide information on how the services will achieve this 
goal, as well as other pertinent information, by March 31, 
2009.

                      Subtitle F--Military Justice


  Section 551--Grade of Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the 
                              Marine Corps

    This section would amend section 5046 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require that the Staff Judge Advocate to the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps serve in the grade of major 
general.

            Section 552--Standing Military Protection Order

    This section would amend chapter 80 of title 10, United 
States Code, to extend a standing military protective order by 
a military commander until the allegation prompting the 
protective order is resolved by investigation, courts martial, 
or other command determined adjudication, or the military 
commander issues a new order.

Section 553--Mandatory Notification of Issuance of Military Protective 
                   Order to Civilian Law Enforcement

    This section would require the commander of a military 
installation to notify appropriate civilian authorities in the 
event a military protective order is issued against a member of 
the armed forces and any individual involved in the order does 
not reside on a military installation.

 Section 554--Implementation of Information Database on Sexual Assault 
                     Incidents in the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
implement a centralized, case-level database for the collection 
and maintenance of all information regarding sexual assault 
involving a member of the armed forces, including information 
about the nature of the assault, the victim, the offender, and 
the outcome of any legal proceedings in connection with the 
assault. Further, the database will be available to personnel 
of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office of the 
Department of Defense to conduct research. The committee notes 
that the department does not currently have sexual assault data 
available in a centralized database, and believes that such a 
capability is needed to properly track and analyze sexual 
assault data. The committee intends for the Department to use 
the database to improve the quality and utility of the analysis 
and recommendations included in the annual reports required by 
law to be submitted to Congress. Upon implementation of the 
database, annual reports shall include, but not be limited to, 
providing a comprehensive assessment of the successes, 
challenges, and lessons learned from the Department's sexual 
assault programs.

        Subtitle G--Decorations, Awards, and Honorary Promotions


            Section 561--Replacement of Military Decorations

    This section would require the secretary concerned to 
replace, on a one-time basis and without charge, a military 
decoration upon the request of the recipient of the military 
decoration or the next of kin of a deceased recipient.

 Section 562--Authorization and Request for Award of Medal of Honor to 
     Richard L. Etchberger for Acts of Valor during the Vietnam War

    This section would authorize the President to award the 
Medal of Honor to Richard L. Etchberger, who served in the 
United States Air Force during the Vietnam War. This section 
would also waive the statutory time limitation under section 
8744 of title 10, United States Code.

Section 563--Advancement of Brigadier General Charles E. Yeager, United 
            States Air Force (Retired), on the Retired List

    This section would entitle Brigadier General Yeager to hold 
the rank of Major General on the retired list of the Air Force. 
The entitlement to hold the higher grade would provide no 
additional pay or benefits.

Section 564--Advancement of Rear Admiral Wayne E. Meyer, United States 
                  Navy (Retired), on the Retired List

    This section would authorize and request the President to 
appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, Rear 
Admiral Wayne E. Meyer to the grade of vice admiral on the 
retired list of the Navy. The appointment to hold the higher 
grade would provide no additional pay or benefits.

      Section 565--Award of Vietnam Service Medal to Veterans Who 
               Participated in Mayaguez Rescue Operation

    This section would authorize the secretary of a military 
department to award the Vietnam Service Medal to veterans as a 
substitute for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal that had 
been awarded for participation in the operation to rescue the 
SS Mayaguez during the period May 12 through May 15, 1975.

                         Subtitle H--Impact Aid


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

    This section would provide $50.0 million for assistance to 
local educational agencies that have military dependent 
students comprising at least 20 percent of the students in 
average daily attendance during a year. This section would also 
provide $15.0 million for assistance to local educational 
agencies that experience significant increases and decreases in 
the average daily attendance of military dependent students due 
to military force structure changes, relocation of military 
forces from one base to another, and base closures and 
realignments. The committee continues its efforts to ensure 
that local school districts with a significant concentration of 
military students receive the support necessary to provide for 
military families and their dependents.

 Section 572--Calculation of Payments under Department of Education's 
                           Impact Aid Program

    This section would amend section 8003 of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1985 (20 U.S.C. 7703(c)) to allow 
local educational agencies who are heavily impacted by base 
closures and force structure changes to use the current school 
year student population to obtain impact aid funding, as 
opposed to the previous school year student population.

                     Subtitle I--Military Families


                Section 581--Presentation of Burial Flag

    This section would amend section 1482 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Department of Defense to provide a 
ceremonial burial flag to a surviving spouse, or remarried 
surviving spouse, if the person authorized to direct the 
disposition of remains is other than a spouse.

 Section 582--Education and Training Opportunities for Military Spouses

    This section would amend section 1784 of title 10, United 
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to establish a 
program to provide tuition assistance and other support to 
eligible military spouses of active duty soldiers, who often do 
not have the opportunities to develop a career as they move 
with their service member spouse from one military base to 
another.

                       Subtitle J--Other Matters


 Section 591--Inclusion of Reserves in Providing Federal Aid for State 
   Governments, Enforcing Federal Authority, and Responding to Major 
                           Public Emergencies

    This section would modify sections 331, 332, and 333 of 
title 10, United States Code, to clarify Presidential 
authorities with respect to federal response to insurrection, 
domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, to 
include the use of reserve personnel from the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

     Section 592--Interest Payments on Certain Claims Arising from 
                     Correction of Military Records

    This section would require that payments of claims 
resulting from the decision of a board for correction of 
military records to set aside a conviction by court-martial 
include interest calculated from the date of conviction through 
the date on which the payment is made. This section would set 
the rate of interest to be paid as not less than the rate of 
interest paid to service members participating in the 
government savings plan authorized under section 1035 of title 
10, United States Code, on the date the payment of the claim is 
made. This section would further specify that the section would 
be applied to a decision of a board for the correction of 
military records on or after October 1, 2007, to set aside a 
court-martial conviction.

  Section 593--Extension of Limitation on Reductions of Personnel of 
   Agencies Responsible for Review and Correction of Military Records

    This section would extend through December 31, 2010, the 
prohibition precluding the secretaries of the military 
departments from reducing the number of military and civilian 
personnel assigned to duty within the board for correction of 
military records until 90 days after the secretary concerned 
submits a report to Congress that describes the proposed 
reduction, provides the rationale for the reduction, and 
specifies the number of personnel that will be assigned to the 
board after the reduction is complete.

Section 594--Authority to Order Reserve Units to Active Duty to Provide 
        Assistance in Response to a Major Disaster or Emergency

    This section would amend existing law to permit the 
President to authorize the Secretary of Defense, and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard 
when not operating as a service for the Navy, to order any unit 
or member of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, 
and the Coast Guard Reserve to active duty for a major disaster 
or emergency, as those terms are defined in section 5122 of 
title 42, United States Code.

      Section 595--Senior Military Leadership Diversity Commission

    This section would establish the Senior Military Leadership 
Diversity Commission, which would review: efforts to develop 
and maintain diverse leadership at all levels of the armed 
forces; the successes and failures of developing and 
maintaining a diverse leadership; the ability of current 
recruitment and retention practices to attract and maintain a 
diverse pool of officers in pre-commissioning program; and 
other factors that address improvements in the diversity of the 
officer corps, particularly at the general and flag officer 
rank. The commission would be required to submit the results of 
their study one year after the commission first meets.

          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 3.9 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 10th consecutive 
year that the pay raise would exceed the ECI level and would 
result in an average cumulative pay increase of 52 percent over 
the last 10 years.
    The committee also recognizes that some previously adopted 
compensation policies, bonuses, and special pays require 
modification to ensure they remain current and effective. The 
committee recommends a number of such adjustments, including a 
number of refinements to the initiative to reform special and 
incentive pays adopted in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
    The committee believes that more needs to be done to 
protect the annuities of surviving military spouses and 
increase compensation and benefits that support members during 
permanent changes of station. For example, the committee would 
include provisions that would authorize the survivors of active 
duty deaths to receive a survivor indemnity allowance, increase 
the allowance for temporary lodging, and increase household 
goods shipment weight allowances for noncommissioned officers.
    The committee remains committed to protecting and enhancing 
military exchange, commissary, and morale, welfare, and 
recreation programs. Accordingly, the committee includes 
provisions that would make military resale stores and morale, 
welfare, and recreation activities more efficient and effective 
programs.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


             Defense Commissary Agency Construction Funding

    Department of Defense policy requires that appropriated 
funding be used to support morale, welfare, and recreation, 
armed services exchange, temporary duty lodging, and other 
nonappropriated fund instrumentality facility construction 
determined to be required as a result of:
          (1) Base Realignment and Closure and global 
        repositioning decisions;
          (2) Acts of God, fire, and terrorism; or
          (3) Other relocation or replacement of such 
        facilities for the convenience of the government or 
        required by international agreements.
The committee notes that the policy does not include the 
facility requirements of the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) 
determined as necessary under identical circumstances.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to modify 
the policy regarding the use of appropriated funding to support 
nonappropriated fund instrumentality construction to include 
similar facility construction requirements of DeCA. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
confirming that the policy regarding appropriated funding of 
Defense Commissary Agency construction requirements is 
identical to that of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services by March 31, 2009.

          Disabled Veterans Access to Commissary and Exchanges

    The committee is considering options for increasing the 
opportunity for disabled veterans to shop at commissary and 
exchange stores operated by the Department of Defense. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
propriety of expanding the population eligible to shop at 
commissary and exchange stores from those veterans rated 100 
percent disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
include disabled veterans with disability ratings above 30 
percent. The Secretary shall submit a report on his findings 
and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2009.

                      Post-Deployment Leave Policy

    The committee notes that the services have different 
policies regarding the duty status of members during the rest 
and recovery period following lengthy deployments. For example, 
the committee believes it is inequitable that Army members are 
required to use annual leave during block leave periods 
following deployments while Air Force personnel are granted 10 
days of recovery and reconstitution time for which they are not 
required to take annual leave so long as they remain in the 
local area. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
study the service policies regarding post-deployment rest and 
recovery periods and to recommend a policy or legislative 
remedy that ensures service members are treated with fairness 
and equity regarding the use of chargeable leave. The Secretary 
shall report his findings and recommendations to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2009.

                   Telephone Services in Combat Zones

    The committee notes that section 885 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that contracts 
to provide morale, welfare, and recreation telephone service to 
military personnel serving in combat zones be awarded using 
competitive procedures. The section also requires the Secretary 
to review proposals for new or extended contracts to determine 
if it is in the best interest of the Department of Defense to 
require contract proposals to include options that minimize the 
cost of telephone services to individual users while providing 
those users the flexibility to use phone cards from phone 
service providers other than the entity offering the proposal.
    The committee expresses concern over whether the process 
used to pursue a new or extended contract for such telephone 
services fully complies with the requirements of section 885 
and whether service members are being provided the best 
possible, most cost-efficient telephone services. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to determine if there have 
been any new or extended contracts to provide morale, welfare, 
and recreational telephone services in combat zones since the 
passage of section 885 and, if there has been a new or extended 
contract, to confirm that the Department of Defense has fully 
complied with the requirements of section 885. In addition, the 
committee directs the Secretary to determine the average cost 
of phone calls made by service members and other Department of 
Defense employees in combat zones using contracted telephone 
resources and the average amount of that cost that is returned 
to the contractor as return on investment or profit. The 
Secretary shall report his findings to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 
30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances


      Section 601--Fiscal Year 2009 Increase in Military Basic Pay

    This section would increase basic pay for members of the 
uniform services by 3.9 percent effective January 1, 2009. This 
raise would continue to fulfill Congress's commitment to keep 
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 2009 would be reduced from approximately 3.4 percent to 
2.9 percent.

  Section 602--Permanent Prohibition on Charges for Meals Received at 
   Military Treatment Facilities by Members Receiving Continuous Care

    This section would permanently prohibit military treatment 
facilities from charging a service member for meals when the 
member is undergoing medical recuperation or therapy or is 
otherwise in the status of continuous care, including 
outpatient care, resulting from injury, illness, or disease 
incurred or aggravated by service in support of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom or other combat zone as 
designated by the Secretary of Defense.

    Section 603--Equitable Treatment of Senior Enlisted Members in 
               Computation of Basic Allowance for Housing

    This section would authorize the same housing standard used 
in the calculation of basic allowance for housing for 
noncommissioned officers in the grade of E-8 as the standard 
used to calculate basic allowance for housing for 
noncommissioned officers in the grade of E-9.

 Section 604--Increase in Maximum Authorized Payment or Reimbursement 
                 Amount for Temporary Lodging Expenses

    This section would increase the maximum rate that may be 
paid to service members for temporary lodging expenses in 
connection with permanent changes of station from $180 per day 
to $290 per day.

  Section 605--Availability of Portion of a Second Family Separation 
             Allowance for Married Couples with Dependents

    This section would require the secretary concerned to pay 
one member of a married couple, both of whom are members of the 
uniformed services who reside together with dependents, a full 
family separation allowance and the other member one-half of 
such allowance when both members are simultaneously assigned to 
duty under the following conditions:
          (1) Permanent duty stations where dependents are not 
        authorized;
          (2) Deployed ships for more than 30 days; or
          (3) Temporary duty away from the member's permanent 
        duty station for more than 30 days.

 Section 606--Stabilization of Pay and Allowances for Senior Enlisted 
    Members and Warrant Officers Appointed as Officers and Officers 
                      Reappointed in a Lower Grade

    This section would authorize a member of the armed forces 
who accepts an appointment or reappointment as an officer 
without a break in service to retain the pay and allowances to 
which the member was entitled in the previous grade if it is 
more than the pay and allowances to which the member is 
entitled in the grade to which he is appointed or reappointed.

Section 607--Extension of Authority for Income Replacement Payments for 
     Reserve Component Members Experiencing Extended and Frequent 
                  Mobilization for Active Duty Service

    This section would extend from December 31, 2008, to 
December 31, 2009, the authority for reserve component members 
subjected to extended and frequent mobilization for active duty 
service to be compensated for private sector income denied the 
member as a result of such service.

Section 608--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 
the uniformed services during fiscal years 2010 through 2013 
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, repayment of educational 
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the 
Selected Reserve, 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.

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 
                   Title 37 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 accession bonus for new officers in 
critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military 
occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the 
accession bonus for officer candidates, and retention bonus for 
members with critical military skills or assigned to high 
priority units until December 31, 2009.

 Section 615--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Referral 
                                Bonuses

    This section would extend the authority for the health 
professions referral bonus and the Army referral bonus until 
December 31, 2009.

 Section 616--Increase in Maximum Bonus and Stipend Amounts Authorized 
            under Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program

    This section would increase the bonus that may be paid to 
nurse officer candidates from $10,000 to $20,000 and the 
monthly stipend that may be paid to such candidates from $1,000 
to $1,250. This section would also increase the amount of the 
initial installment payment of the bonus from $5,000 to 
$10,000.

Section 617--Maximum Length of Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay Agreements 
                              for Service

    This section would authorize nuclear officer incentive pay 
agreements to be of any duration beyond a minimum period of 
three years.

Section 618--Technical Changes Regarding Consolidation of Special Pay, 
     Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities of the Uniformed Services

    This section would make technical changes to facilitate the 
utility of provisions included in the initiative to reform 
special and incentive pays adopted in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).

   Section 619--Use of New Skill Incentive Pay and Proficiency Bonus 
  Authorities to Encourage Training in Critical Foreign Languages and 
                        Foreign Cultural Studies

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay 
a skill proficiency bonus of up to $12,000 annually to a member 
enrolled in an officer training program who is in training to 
acquire proficiency in a critical foreign language or expertise 
in foreign cultural studies. The section would also authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program through 
December 31, 2013, to pay a skill proficiency bonus to a member 
of a reserve component in an active status while the member 
participates in an education or training program to acquire 
proficiency in a critical foreign language or expertise in 
critical foreign cultural studies.

  Section 620--Temporary Targeted Bonus Authority to Increase Direct 
          Accessions of Officers in Certain Health Professions

    This section would designate qualified psychologists, 
registered nurses, and other such mental health practitioners, 
as a secretary of a military department determines to be 
necessary, as critically-short wartime specialties. The 
designation would make such medical practitioners eligible for 
a bonus of up to $100,000 for each 12-month period of obligated 
service that they agree to serve on active duty or in an active 
status in the reserves. The designation would terminate on 
September 30, 2010.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


 Section 631--Increased Weight Allowance for Transportation of Baggage 
           and Household Effects for Certain Enlisted Members

    This section would authorize noncommissioned officers in 
the grades of E-5 through E-9 increased weight allowances for 
shipping household goods during permanent changes in station.

    Section 632--Additional Weight Allowance for Transportation of 
Materials Associated with Employment of a Member's Spouse or Community 
                Support Volunteer or Charity Activities

    This section would authorize an additional 200 pounds in 
the weight allowance for shipping household goods during 
permanent changes in station for the purpose of shipping 
materials associated with the employment or community support 
activities of the service member's spouse.

    Section 633--Transportation of Family Pets During Evacuation of 
                         Nonessential Personnel

    This section would authorize service members to transport 
two family household pets at government expense when non-
essential personnel are evacuated from a permanent station 
located in a foreign area.

             Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits


   Section 641--Equity in Computation of Disability Retired Pay for 
              Reserve Component Members Wounded in Action

    This section would require that the calculation of retired 
pay for reserve component service members who are retired or 
placed on the temporary disability retired list be based on the 
member's total years of service in lieu of active duty years of 
service when the retirement is based on a disability incurred 
under circumstances for which the member was awarded the Purple 
Heart.

Section 642--Effect of Termination of Subsequent Marriage on Payment of 
Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity to Surviving Spouse or Former Spouse Who 
          Previously Transferred Annuity to Dependent Children

    This section would authorize surviving spouses or former 
spouses who previously transferred the Survivor Benefit Plan 
annuity to a child or children to reclaim eligibility for the 
annuity after the termination of a marriage if the child or 
children are no longer eligible for the annuity.

   Section 643--Extension to Survivors of Certain Members Who Die on 
    Active Duty of Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for Persons 
     Affected by Required Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for 
                 Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

    This section would amend section 644 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to authorize the survivors of service members who die 
while serving on active duty to receive a special survivor 
indemnity allowance effective October 1, 2008, as originally 
authorized for other recipients.

 Section 644--Election to Receive Retired Pay for Non-Regular Service 
upon Retirement for Service in an Active Reserve Status Performed after 
              Attaining Eligibility for Regular Retirement

    This section would authorize members of reserve components 
who served in an active reserve status in the Selected Reserve 
for not less than two years after becoming eligible for an 
active duty retirement to elect a non-regular retirement for 
which they are qualified. This section would authorize the 
secretary concerned to reduce the two-year service requirement 
for a member recalled to serve in the position of adjutant 
general or assistant adjutant general within the national guard 
when the member serves at least six months but fails to 
complete the two years of service due to the requirements of 
the law of the state, commonwealth, or territory in which the 
member is serving. This section would further specify that a 
member has attained retirement eligibility after meeting all 
qualifying criteria without regard to whether the person 
actually retired or received retired or retainer pay.

  Section 645--Recomputation of Retired Pay and Adjustment of Retired 
     Grade of Reserve Retirees to Reflect Service after Retirement

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to 
recompute the retired pay and adjust the retired grade of non-
regular retirees who have been recalled to an active status in 
the Selected Reserve for not less than two years. This section 
would authorize the secretary concerned to reduce the two-year 
service requirement for a member recalled to serve in the 
position of adjutant general or assistant adjutant general 
within the National Guard when the member serves at least six 
months but fails to complete the two years of service due to 
the requirements of the law of the state, commonwealth, or 
territory in which the member is serving.

  Section 646--Correction of Unintended Reduction in Survivor Benefit 
     Plan Annuities Due to Phased Elimination of Two-Tier Annuity 
                  Computation and Supplemental Annuity

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
determine if the phased elimination of the two-tier annuity 
computation and the related Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan 
resulted in some Survivor Benefit Plan annuitants receiving a 
smaller annuity than they would have received if the two-tier 
computation system had not been eliminated. This section would 
require the Secretary to restore the annuity to the level that 
would have been paid if the two-tier computation had continued 
to operate if the Secretary identifies annuitants that are 
receiving smaller annuities.

Section 647--Presumption of Death for Participants in Survivor Benefit 
                         Plan in Missing Status

    This section would specify that the secretary of a military 
department may not declare a military retiree who has been 
determined as missing in Iraq or Afghanistan after August 1, 
2007, as presumed dead until the earlier of a period of at 
least seven years has elapsed or the retiree has been confirmed 
dead and a death certificate provided to the next of kin. This 
section would also require monthly retired pay to be resumed 
and any retired pay that may have been due following the 
declaration of the presumption of death to be retroactively 
paid to the family of the missing retiree.

    Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                        Benefits and Operations


Section 651--Use of Commissary Stores Surcharges Derived from Temporary 
   Commissary Initiatives for Reserve Components and Retired Members

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
use surcharge proceeds derived from commissary sales to reserve 
component members, retired members, and other authorized 
commissary patrons utilizing temporary or mobile equipment to 
offset the cost of operations to deliver the goods and services 
using mobile assets.

  Section 652--Requirements for Private Operation of Commissary Store 
                               Functions

    This section would extend a moratorium on studies to 
compare the cost effectiveness of commissary operations 
employing federal civilian employees and such operations 
employing private sector employees from December 31, 2008, to 
December 31, 2013. This section would provide the Defense 
Commissary Agency the opportunity to continue to reengineer 
their workforce to increase effectiveness and efficiency prior 
to competing with private sector entities.

Section 653--Additional Exception to Limitation on Use of Appropriated 
              Funds for Department of Defense Golf Courses

    This section would authorize the use of appropriated funds 
to purchase and maintain specialized golf carts designed to 
accommodate persons with disabilities and the use of such golf 
carts on military golf courses where they can be operated 
safely.

 Section 654--Enhanced Enforcement of Prohibition on Sale or Rental of 
          Sexually Explicit Material on Military Installations

    This section would mandate that the Secretary of Defense 
establish a Resale Activities Review Board to make 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding material that is 
determined to be sexually explicit and therefore barred from 
being sold or rented on property under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Defense. The board would be comprised of nine 
members of whom six would be appointed by the Secretary of 
Defense to broadly represent the interests of the eligible 
patron population and three would be appointed by the 
secretaries of the military departments. This section would 
require the board membership to be appointed within 120 days of 
the date of enactment of this Act and the board to meet within 
one year of the initial appointment of the board members.

Section 655--Requirement to Buy Military Decorations, Ribbons, Badges, 
   Medals, Insignia, and Other Uniform Accouterments produced in the 
                             United States

    This section would preclude a military exchange store or 
other nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of 
Defense from purchasing for resale any military decorations, 
ribbons, badges, medals, insignia, and other uniform 
accouterments that are not produced in the United States. The 
section would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
purchase such uniform accouterments manufactured outside the 
United States when adequate quantity or satisfactory quality 
cannot be procured from U.S. manufacturers or the purchase of 
items produced outside the United States is in the best 
interests of members of the armed forces.

   Section 656--Use of Appropriated Funds to Pay Post Allowances or 
      Overseas Cost of Living Allowances to Nonappropriated Fund 
               Instrumentality Employees Serving Overseas

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
use appropriated funding to pay post allowances or overseas 
cost-of-living allowances to nonappropriated fund employees 
serving at overseas locations. This section would include such 
allowances due for payment before, on, or after the date of 
enactment of this Act, but such payments would not be 
authorized under this section after December 31, 2011.
    The committee is aware that there has been some confusion 
about the requirement for nonappropriated fund entities to pay 
post allowances at overseas locations when the employee is 
hired locally. The committee is also aware that the Department 
of Defense (DOD) is reconsidering the current policy that 
requires post allowances to be paid to nonapropriated fund 
employees who are locally hired. Given the confusion over the 
specifics of the policy, the committee believes that 
nonappropriated fund entities should be protected from the 
burden of making additional unexpected retroactive and current 
payments until the reassessment of the policy is completed. The 
committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
identify and allocate appropriated funding to pay post 
allowances to nonapropriated fund employees who were locally 
hired at overseas locations and ensure that no nonappropriated 
fund entity incurs additional cost resulting from confusion 
over DOD policy on these matters.

    Section 657--Study Regarding Sale of Alcoholic Wine and Beer in 
            Commissary Stores in Addition to Exchange Stores

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study evaluating the propriety, patron convenience, 
and financial utility of authorizing alcoholic wine and beer 
for sale in commissary stores and to report his findings and 
recommendations to Congress within 120 days following 
completion of the study. This section would also authorize the 
Secretary to conduct a pilot program involving the sale of 
alcoholic beer and wine over a period of not less than four 
months, but not more than one year as part of the study if such 
a pilot program is determined to be useful.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


  Section 661--Bonus to Encourage Army Personnel and Other Persons to 
                Refer Persons for Enlistment in the Army

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
train, directly or through a contractor, members of the general 
public to refer recruit candidates for enlistment. This section 
would also authorize the Secretary greater flexibility on the 
timing of referral bonus payments and the use of a contractor 
to manage the payment of referral bonuses.

    Section 662--Continuation of Entitlement to Bonuses and Similar 
 Benefits for Members of the Uniformed Services Who Die, are Separated 
           or Retired for Disability, or Meet Other Criteria

    This section would mandate that the estate of a service 
member who dies, other than as a result of the member's 
misconduct, or is retired or separated for disability, will not 
be required to repay any portion of a bonus or similar benefit 
that had been paid to the member. This section would also 
mandate that the full contracted amount of any unpaid bonus or 
similar benefit will be paid within 90 days of death, 
retirement, or separation. This section would also authorize 
the secretary concerned to elect not to recoup bonuses and 
similar benefits. The secretary concerned would also be 
authorized to continue payment of the unpaid portion of such 
bonuses and benefits when the secretary determines that it 
would be contrary to a personnel policy or management 
objective, against equity and good conscience, or contrary to 
the best interests of the United States to deny the unpaid 
amount.

Section 663--Providing Injured Members of the Armed Forces Information 
                          Concerning Benefits

    This section would amend section 1651 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to add additional requirements to the handbook required by 
that section.

                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee remains profoundly concerned about the 
ability of the Defense Health Program to support operational 
requirements, accessibility, and quality of health care 
provided to service members, retirees, and family members. 
After over six years of conflict, the military health system 
appears to be unable to keep up with current demands, as 
evidenced by the continuing shift of care from the direct care 
system to the purchased care system. The committee has learned 
that in the past year, entire clinical Departments and graduate 
medical education programs of military treatment facilities 
have had to close for extended periods due to deploying staff. 
The committee is also concerned with the Department's ability 
to retain the exceptional military health care providers in the 
face of the strains placed upon the system. The committee urges 
the Department to ensure that the Defense Health Program is 
fully funded to meet the demands placed on the system.
    The committee is encouraged that the Department appears to 
have adopted a more responsible method of budgeting for the 
Defense Health Program by significantly reducing the mandated 
efficiencies levied on military treatment facilities. However, 
the committee remains troubled that the Department continues to 
pursue some form of converting military medical and dental 
positions to civilian medical and dental positions despite 
indications that such conversions have had an adverse effect on 
the military health system.
    The committee is disappointed that the Department has been 
slow to develop a thoughtful and comprehensive strategy to 
control the growing cost of health care. This year, the 
Department once again proposed their Sustain the Benefit plan, 
and cut [$1.2 billion] from the budget based on anticipated 
savings from the proposal. The committee rejects the 
philosophical underpinning of Sustain the Benefit that the only 
way to control cost growth is to dramatically raise fees to 
discourage beneficiaries from seeking care or even 
participating in TRICARE. As such, the committee proposes a 
series of demonstration projects for the purpose of 
fundamentally elevating the role of preventive care. The 
committee seeks to enhance the medical readiness of military 
forces and improve the health status of all beneficiaries. This 
may reduce the amount of care required by the beneficiary 
population, which the committee finds preferable to the 
Department's proposal to reduce both the amount of care 
available to the beneficiary population and the size of the 
beneficiary population itself. In addition, given the GAO 
report that found the Department is collecting more revenue in 
premiums than it is paying out in care, the committee believes 
that it is time for the Department to recalculate the TRICARE 
Reserve Select premium.
    The committee remains concerned about the care, 
rehabilitation, and support provided our wounded warriors. The 
committee will continue to provide vigilant oversight as the 
Department implements the requirements of the Wounded Warrior 
Act, contained in title 16 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


        Pain Care Initiative in Military Health Care Facilities

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, to develop a plan for a 
pain care initiative in all health care facilities of the 
uniformed services. The plan shall include elements to ensure 
that:
          (1) All active and retired members of the uniformed 
        services and their dependents receiving treatment in 
        health care facilities of the uniformed services are 
        assessed for pain at the time of admission or initial 
        treatment, and periodically thereafter, using a 
        professionally recognized pain assessment tool or 
        process; and
          (2) They receive appropriate pain care consistent 
        with recognized means for assessment, diagnosis, 
        treatment, and management of acute and chronic pain, 
        including, in appropriate cases, access to specialty 
        pain management services.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
feasibility of including pain care standards into any contract 
entered into by the Department of Defense for the provision of 
health care. These standards shall:
          (1) Be consistent with recognized means for 
        assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and management of 
        acute and chronic pain;
          (2) Provide medical and other health services through 
        physicians and other practitioners appropriately 
        credentialed or experienced in pain management;
          (3) Provide for referral of patients with chronic 
        pain to specialists, and, in appropriate cases, to a 
        comprehensive multidisciplinary pain management 
        program;
          (4) Continue treatment for as long as treatment is 
        required to maximize the quality of life and functional 
        capacity of the patient; and
          (5) Permit physicians and other practitioners 
        appropriately credentialed or experienced in pain 
        management to make clinical decisions with respect to 
        the need for and the extent and duration of pain care 
        services.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report on the pain care initiative plan within nine months 
after the date of the enactment of this Act to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services.

                   Reserve Component Dental Readiness

    The committee remains concerned about the amount of time, 
effort, and funds that the military departments must expend to 
bring reserve component service members up to the appropriate 
level of dental readiness upon mobilization in order to deploy. 
The committee has become aware that the Army has developed, but 
not yet implemented, a program that would maintain all Army 
soldiers in the Selected Reserve at a deployable level of 
dental readiness independent of alert status and mobilization 
schedule. The committee believes that the Army Selected Reserve 
Dental Readiness System (ASDRS) is a practical approach to 
ensure that the Selected Reserve meets current oral health 
requirements and is ready to deploy in a timely manner. 
Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
review ASDRS in the context of all of the reserve components 
and provide recommendations for further action to the 
congressional defense committees within 90 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.

                 Suicide Prevention in the Armed Forces

    With the continuing high operations tempo and the stresses 
facing service members and their families during deployment and 
at the home station, the committee is aware that the risk of 
suicide among service members is at an all-time high. The 
committee remains steadfast in support of all efforts towards 
suicide prevention within the armed forces and remains 
committed to ensuring that the men and women who serve receive 
the most advanced prevention, identification, and treatment 
programs available. The committee commends the Department and 
the military services for committing resources to institute 
numerous programs to provide suicide prevention support to 
service members and their families, but strongly encourages the 
Department and the military services to put even more focus on 
this critical issue. As such, the committee urges the Secretary 
of Defense to review and evaluate current prevention efforts 
across the armed forces and make necessary changes to increase 
suicide prevention within the Department. The committee also 
directs the Secretary to study the possibility of providing a 
referral for second opinion to potentially suicidal service 
members in a combat theater and to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act. This shall include consideration of 
the feasibility of a telephonic evaluation of a service member, 
ensuring that they or others are not placed in additional risk 
by transiting to a different geographic location to obtain a 
second opinion.

                  Wounded Warriors as Health Providers

    The committee recognizes the improvements the Department 
has made to the care and management of wounded service members 
over the past year, the progress that still must be made, and 
the continued and growing need for health providers that can 
easily relate to wounded service members. The committee 
believes that many wounded service members who display the 
appropriate aptitude could be retrained by the military to 
become military health professionals. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of identifying 
and retraining wounded service members as military health 
professionals and submit a report with the findings of the 
study to the congressional defense committees within 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                    Subtitle A--Health Care Matters


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

    This section would extend the prohibition established by 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) on the Department of Defense 
from increasing the premium and copayment for TRICARE Prime, 
the charge for inpatient care for TRICARE Standard, and the 
premium for TRICARE Standard for members of the Selected 
Reserve during the period from October 1, 2008, to September 
30, 2009. The committee shares the Department'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 and deliberate 
consideration with a full accounting of the impact. 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, 
2009.

 Section 703--Prohibition on Conversion of Military Medical and Dental 
           Positions to Civilian Medical and Dental Positions

    This section would indefinitely extend the prohibition on 
conversions of military medical and dental positions to 
civilian medical and dental positions by a secretary of a 
military department by removing the end date of section 721 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181).

    Section 704--Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active Duty

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide chiropractic services and benefits as a permanent part 
of the Defense Health Program, including the TRICARE program, 
for all active duty service members.

Section 705--Requirement to Recalculate TRICARE Reserve Select Premiums 
                       Based on Actual Cost Data

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
recalculate the monthly amount of the premium for TRICARE 
Standard coverage. The committee notes the findings of the 
Government Accountability Office report that found the 
Department of Defense was collecting more from beneficiaries 
than it was paying out in health care costs. The committee 
believes that the report's finding suggests that beneficiaries 
may be overpaying for their coverage.

Section 706--Program for Health Care Delivery at Military Installations 
                           Projected to Grow

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan to establish a program to build cooperative 
health care arrangements and agreements between military 
installations projected to grow and local and regional non-
military health care systems. The committee notes the success 
achieved at Fort Drum, New York, of the pilot program 
established by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) and 
extended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to test such arrangements and 
agreements. Consequently, the committee believes that the pilot 
program should be institutionalized to encourage similar 
arrangements at installations that are projected to grow due to 
recommendations of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission or Grow the Force initiatives but lack the current 
or planned medical treatment capacity to satisfy the proposed 
increase in military personnel at the installation.

    Section 707--Guidelines for Combined Federal Medical Facilities

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to complete a written agreement 
on patient priority categories, budgeting, staffing, 
construction, and physical plant management before a facility 
could be designated a combined federal medical facility of the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
The committee notes ongoing efforts at the Captain James A. 
Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago, Illinois, 
and encourages the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs to consider similar facilities at other 
geographic locations. Specifically, the committee believes that 
a combined federal medical facility, or at least a shared 
medical building or campus, should be considered on Guam given 
the planned move of forces to that island from Okinawa, Japan. 
The committee also believes there is opportunity for a combined 
federal medical facility or a shared medical building in Corpus 
Christi, Texas.

                      Subtitle B--Preventive Care


 Section 711--Waiver of Copayments for Preventive Services for Certain 
                         TRICARE Beneficiaries

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
waive all cost shares for TRICARE beneficiaries who currently 
pay for preventive services, with the exception of Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries, who would be eligible to receive a 
rebate for all preventive services.

   Section 712--Military Health Risk Management Demonstration Project

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
implement a demonstration project designed to reward healthy 
behaviors on the part of TRICARE Prime enrollees. The 
demonstration project would be carried out over a period of 
three years in at least three geographic areas within the 
United States as determined by the Secretary. Non-Medicare 
eligible retirees and their dependents enrolled in TRICARE 
Prime residing in the demonstration project would be enrolled 
in the demonstration which would consist of a self-reported 
health risk assessment and physiological and biometric 
measures, such as blood pressure, glucose level, lipids and 
nicotine use. Based on the results of the health risk 
assessment and physiological and biometric measures, enrollees 
would be offered programs designed to improve or maintain their 
health status. The Secretary would be authorized, for the 
purpose of this demonstration, to offer monetary and non-
monetary incentives to enrollees to encourage participation in 
the demonstration. The Secretary would be required to submit an 
annual report on the effectiveness of the demonstration 
program.

          Section 713--Smoking Cessation Program under TRICARE

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a smoking cessation program to be made available to 
all eligible beneficiaries under the TRICARE program, with the 
exception of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, who would be 
eligible to receive a rebate for all smoking cessation 
services. The program would include the availability of a 
pharmaceutical used for smoking cessation by prescription at no 
cost, access to a toll-free quit line that is available 24 
hours a day 7 days a week, and access to printed and web-based 
tobacco cessation materials.

 Section 714--Availability of Allowance to Assist Members of the Armed 
  Forces and their Dependents Procure Preventive Health Care Services

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a demonstration project designed to evaluate the 
efficacy of providing a preventive health allowance to improve 
the use of preventive health services by active duty service 
members and their families. The demonstration program would pay 
individual service members (single status) $500 and military 
families (active duty member and dependents) $1000 per year if 
they fulfill all of the preventive health requirements set 
forth by the Secretary. The demonstration project would also 
require active duty service members to meet their service's 
medical and dental readiness requirements to be eligible.

                  Subtitle C--Wounded Warrior Matters


Section 721--Center of Excellence in Prevention, Diagnosis, Mitigation, 
   Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Hearing Loss and Auditory System 
                                Injuries

    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a center of excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, 
mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of hearing loss and 
auditory system injuries. This provision would ensure 
collaboration to the maximum extent practicable with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and other appropriate public and 
private entities.
    The committee is concerned that hearing difficulties, 
central auditory disorders, balance problems, and tinnitus are 
occurring at alarming rates in service members from military 
service associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). One report of a study of OIF 
and OEF returning veterans who had been exposed to blast shows 
more than 50 percent had significant hearing loss, 49 percent 
reported tinnitus, 32 percent experienced tympanic membrane 
perforation, 26 percent indicated ear pain, and 15 percent 
complained of dizziness. A 2008 analysis of post-deployment 
health assessments reveals that 75 percent of deployed service 
members report exposure to noise. The committee notes the 
mounting evidence that audiologic and otologic disorders are 
often associated with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic 
stress disorder.
    The committee believes the Department of the Army Hearing 
Program is a step in the right direction to address hearing 
health and soldier readiness. This program supports service 
members through hearing readiness, clinical services, 
operational hearing services (such as in-theater communication, 
protection, and noise control/monitoring systems), and provides 
garrison hearing conservation services. The committee 
encourages the Department of the Army to continue to dedicate 
sufficient resources to support the program.
    Considering the vast operational, health, and quality of 
life issues associated with exposure to high noise levels and 
blasts the committee recognizes that the Department of Defense 
needs to focus and accelerate its efforts to address the 
hearing needs of service members.

Section 722--Clarification to Center of Excellence Relating to Military 
                              Eye Injuries

    This section would remove the phrase ``in combat'' from 
section 1623(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to match sections 1621 
and 1623 of the same Act.

          Section 723--National Casualty Care Research Center

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
designate a National Casualty Care Research Center at the Army 
Medical Research and Material Command. The purpose of the 
center would be to establish additional linkages between 
military and civilian casualty research. The center would be 
required to provide public-private partnership for funding 
studies on combat injury, integrate military and civilian 
research to improve care, and ensure that data from both the 
Joint Theater Trauma Registry and National Trauma Bank are used 
to establish research priorities.

 Section 724--Peer-Reviewed Research Program on Extremity War Injuries

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a competitive, peer-reviewed research program within 
the Defense Health Program for the purpose of saving injured 
extremities, avoiding amputations, and preserving and restoring 
the function of injured extremities.

 Section 725--Review of Policies and Processes Related to the Delivery 
             of Mail to Wounded Members of the Armed Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
review the policies and processes related to the delivery of 
letters, packages, messages, and other communications that are 
intended as measures of support and are addressed generally to 
wounded and injured members of the armed forces in military 
medical treatment facilities and other locations where members 
of the armed forces are treated and rehabilitated.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


 Section 731--Report on Stipend for Members of Reserve Components for 
                   Health Care for Certain Dependents

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the extent to which the Secretary has 
exercised the authority provided in section 704 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181).

   Section 732--Report on Providing the Extended Health Care Option 
          Program to Autistic Dependents of Military Retirees

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
prepare a report that contains a plan for including autistic 
dependents of military retirees in the Extended Health Care 
Option program under the TRICARE program.

    Section 733--Sense of Congress Regarding Autism Therapy Services

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a study on autistic therapy services in the Department 
of Defense to include whether those services would be better 
managed under the TRICARE program.

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

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee remains deeply concerned with the methods 
used by the Department of Defense to determine requirements, to 
allocate resources, and to acquire goods and services to 
produce needed capabilities for the warfighter in ways that are 
timely and affordable. Numerous analyses, including those of 
this committee, have found significant shortcomings in the 
Department's acquisition process. The causes for these 
difficulties are numerous, and many lie outside the scope of 
the acquisition process and outside the purview of acquisition 
officials. There are, however, significant structural problems 
in the acquisition process itself that affect major defense 
acquisition programs and also affect the fast growing area of 
contracting for services. The committee has worked, with 
growing emphasis in recent years, to address these issues, 
including the enactment of the Acquisition Improvement and 
Accountability Act of 2007 as part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). 
The committee continues to consider the weaknesses in the 
acquisition process, including cost increases, schedule delays, 
and breaches of integrity, to be serious impediments to the 
Department's ability to continue to safeguard national 
security.
    The committee notes that at least some of the 
responsibility for failures in the acquisition process may be 
found in a lack of capacity in the acquisition workforce and in 
ambiguous guidelines about the appropriate government role in 
providing oversight to acquisition programs. Increasingly, the 
government has relied upon its prime contractors to provide the 
bulk, if not the entirety, of the systems engineering expertise 
and significant management direction for major programs. It is 
not clear, however, that industry is well suited to undertake 
these functions. The Department's experience with lead system 
integrators provides a strong indication that the shortage of 
such capabilities within the government is at least equaled by 
a similar deficit in industry. The committee believes that the 
government must build management capabilities equal to the 
complexity of modern major defense acquisition programs in 
order to improve performance on these programs.
    The committee has also observed the same management 
difficulty in the area of service contracting, which now 
represents the majority of the Department's acquisition budget. 
While contracting for services enables the Department to reduce 
its workforce or avoid developing an organic workforce for a 
contracted task, it significantly increases the government 
capacity required for contract negotiation, contract 
administration, and contract oversight. There are substantial 
limitations to hiring contractors to manage other contractors, 
since it may be difficult to identify personal conflicts of 
interest and it is inappropriate to allow a contractor to make 
decisions that are inherently governmental in nature. The 
question of what internal capabilities to develop and maintain 
and what capabilities to acquire, is a fundamental matter 
confronted by both governmental and commercial enterprises. In 
all cases, such decisions are critical to the performance of 
the organization's mission. Therefore, this title builds on the 
committee's prior work to develop the military acquisition 
workforce necessary to provide management oversight in the area 
of contingency contracting and to ensure the performance of 
inherently governmental acquisition functions by government 
personnel.
    The committee also remains concerned about the defense 
industrial base and matters of industrial security. The 
committee notes that foreign suppliers continue to take on 
increasingly important roles in major defense acquisition 
programs. The committee remains committed to processes which 
allow for and encourage the participation of foreign suppliers 
on a fair, competitive basis, while continuing to ensure that 
critical capabilities and critical materials are maintained 
within the defense industrial base. The committee received 
compelling testimony about the difficulties the Department has 
experienced in ensuring the protection of classified 
information maintained at the facilities of defense 
contractors. The committee notes that much of the most critical 
information relating to major weapons systems resides in the 
possession of defense contractors, and that protection of this 
information must be one of the Department's highest priorities. 
The Government Accountability Office, however, has identified 
the effective protection of technologies critical to U.S. 
national security interests as a government-wide high risk 
area. The committee has recommended codification of critical 
aspects of the Department's industrial security program in 
title 10, United States Code, as part of this title and has 
authorized additional resources for the program elsewhere in 
this Act.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                         Acquisition Workforce

    The committee has long grappled with the challenges 
inherent in the Department of Defense acquisition system. Most 
of the attention has been focused on attempts to improve the 
acquisition process and structure rather than the acquisition 
workforce. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act 
(DAWIA), which was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510), 
was the first major attempt to improve the quality and 
professionalism of the defense acquisition workforce. Since the 
passage of DAWIA, measures have been taken to reduce the size 
of the acquisition workforce in order to reap the benefits of 
improvements in training and efficiency. The Office of 
Personnel Management estimates that the total federal civilian 
workforce declined by 13 percent between 1990 and 2004. At the 
same time, reliance on contractors has increased. The committee 
is aware that the government acquisition workforce may have 
been downsized too much since many of the recent acquisition 
problems can be traced back to poor oversight, poor decision 
making, and poor implementation of acquisition laws and 
regulations. This finding has been highlighted in numerous 
reports by the Government Accountability Office, as well as the 
January 2007, final report of the Acquisition Advisory Panel 
and the October 2007, final report of the Commission on Army 
Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations.
    Congress acknowledged the need for enhancements to the 
acquisition workforce with the enactment of section 852 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), which establishes a designated acquisition fund 
to hire, retain, and train acquisition personnel. The committee 
notes that more attention needs to be paid to the people in the 
acquisition field by providing better training and career 
paths, recognizing them as professionals, and rewarding them 
for the important and critical functions they perform. The 
committee expects that the acquisition fund will enable the 
Department to invest in its workforce, ensuring that the 
Department has the people with the right skills to effectively 
manage and oversee the acquisition of goods and services. The 
taxpayer and the warfighter will benefit greatly from this 
effort.

                      Defense Industrial Security

    The committee notes that the globalization of the defense 
industry and the increase in foreign investment in defense 
firms is creating new challenges for the Department of 
Defense's industrial security program. The committee further 
notes that the bulk of the classified information and 
technology critical to national security is maintained in 
facilities operated by the Department's contractors. The 
committee believes that additional authority is required, and 
has included provisions in this title adding a new subchapter 
to title 10, United States Code, to provide statutory authority 
for industrial security regulations which currently derive 
their authority from an executive order. Further, this 
subchapter would extend certain best practices relating to 
security to all defense contractors working on classified 
contracts and increase congressional oversight of these issues. 
To assist the Department in implanting this statutory 
framework, the committee has recommended authorization of an 
additional $20.0 million for the Defense Security Services' 
industrial security program in title III of this Act.

     Implementation of Changes to Protections for Specialty Metals

    The committee notes that sections 804 and 884 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), made significant changes to the requirements of 
section 2533b, title 10, United States Code, to procure 
strategic materials critical to national security from domestic 
sources. As a result, on January 29, 2008, the Department of 
Defense issued a memorandum entitled, ``Class Deviation--
Implementation of New Specialty Metals Restrictions'' 
(henceforth referred to as ``class deviation'') to implement 
these statutory changes. While the class deviation was 
generally consistent with congressional intent, the committee 
expects the Director, Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy, 
and Strategic Sourcing to thoroughly review the following 
issues and make necessary changes prior to finalizing the 
Department's policy and regulations in this area.
    The committee is concerned about the way that the class 
deviation defines commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) subassemblies 
and components. The definition in the class deviation states, 
``A COTS item is considered to be `offered without 
modification' if it is not modified prior to contractual 
acceptance by the next higher tier in the supply chain.'' The 
committee believes this definition could be misinterpreted 
without further clarification by the Department. First, the 
committee believes that the class deviation should clearly 
state that the exception for COTS items and components 
generally applies to items incorporated in non-commercial end 
items. Second, the committee supports the interpretation in the 
class deviation that, ``If two or more COTS items are combined 
in such a way that the resultant item is not a COTS item, only 
the specialty metals involved in joining the COTS items 
together are subject to the restrictions,'' only if the changes 
made to the COTS item are incidental to installation, joining, 
or incorporation into the non-commercial end item. The 
committee believes that if a contractor is using COTS items 
with more substantial modifications, it must do so either using 
the new de minimis exception or the streamlined compliance for 
commercial derivative military articles.
    Additionally, the committee believes the definition of the 
term ``produced'' in the class deviation requires 
clarification. The committee's intent in adding the term 
``produced'' was to allow for manufacturing processes other 
than the traditional melting process, and it is intended to 
refer to melting or a process that is the equivalent of 
melting. The committee recommends that the Department strike 
the definition of the term ``produced'' or, at a minimum, 
clarify that it does not refer to secondary finishing processes 
such as quenching or tempering.
    Further, while the committee agrees that the certifications 
required by the contractor to receive relief under the de 
minimis and commercial derivative military article exceptions 
should be made in ``good faith'' as described in the class 
deviation, the committee also urges the Department to make 
clear that compliance remains subject to all relevant 
contractual requirements, including potential audit. The 
committee further recommends that the class deviation be 
revised to state that the ``de minimis exception does not apply 
to high performance magnets containing specialty metal,'' 
placing the focus on the melted magnet, rather than the 
individual elements combined to produce the magnet.
    Moreover, the class deviation lists a number of exceptions 
to the requirements of section 2533b, title 10, United States 
Code, including ``(a)(2) Acquisitions outside the United States 
in support of combat operations,'' and ``(a)(3) Acquisitions in 
support of contingency operations.'' The committee notes that 
it would be inconsistent with existing statute to imply that 
acquisitions in support of contingency operations are exempt, 
whether or not those acquisitions take place outside the United 
States. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Director 
revise these exceptions to state, ``Acquisitions outside the 
United States in support of combat operations or in support of 
contingency operations,'' consistent with subsection (c)(1) of 
the statute.
    Finally, the committee notes that the national security 
waiver provided in subsection (k) of section 2533b of title 10, 
United States Code, was designed for use when items of critical 
importance to national security are found to contain non-
compliant specialty metals. The committee intends that the 
authority be used as a last resort and only in the most 
compelling cases. Use of the authority also obligates the 
Department to identify and correct the cause of the non-
compliance, including potential sanctions against a contractor 
who knowingly supplies non-compliant materials. The committee 
expects that the Department will exercise this national 
security waiver authority on an infrequent, case-by-case basis.

          Implementation of Gansler Commission Recommendations

    The committee notes that the report of the Commission on 
Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary 
Operations, commonly known as the Gansler Commission, called 
for urgent reform in the Army's approach to contracting, 
especially contingency contracting, and recommended a 
significant cultural shift in how the Army views acquisition. 
The committee believes that following through on this 
recommendation will require strong commitment from the 
leadership of the Department of the Army and the Department of 
Defense. The commission's report placed significant emphasis on 
restoring positions for general officers in the acquisition 
corps and reestablishing the balance between military and 
civilian contracting personnel. The committee strongly endorses 
the majority of the recommendations of the Gansler Commission 
and has addressed the requirement for an attractive military 
career path for the acquisition corps, which includes the rank 
of general officer in section 813 of this Act. The committee 
has also addressed other Gansler Commission recommendations by 
providing expedited hiring authority to the Department of 
Defense in section 811, and authority to lift the cap on 
premium pay for federal employees in section 1101 of this Act. 
In addition the committee urges the Department to reexamine the 
establishment of a contingency contracting corps as part of its 
joint policy on contingency contracting.

             Implementation of Revolving Door Requirements

    The committee notes that section 847 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) added new requirements for senior Department of Defense 
officials seeking employment with defense contractors. The 
section requires such officials to obtain a written opinion 
from the appropriate government ethics officer on post-
employment restrictions that may apply to the official's 
employment. The section requires defense contractors hiring 
former Department of Defense officials to confirm that the 
written ethics opinion has been obtained and requires the 
Department of Defense to retain these written ethics opinions 
for not less than five years.
    The committee notes that section 847 deals with post-
employment restrictions previously imposed by law and applies 
to senior Department of Defense officials previously covered by 
these restrictions. The committee believes that section 847 
will ensure that the benefits of the written ethics opinion 
clarifying post-employment restrictions are shared by both 
former defense officials and defense contractors. The committee 
expects the Department of Defense, in implementing this 
section, to minimize the administrative burden of this 
requirement while facilitating the ability of senior defense 
officials to quickly obtain written ethics opinions.

                        Increase in Bid Protests

    The committee is concerned that the submission of a bid 
protest is becoming pro forma in the event that a prospective 
contractor is rejected from the competitive range or the award 
of a contract is made to another vendor, and that the number of 
frivolous bid protests submitted to the Government 
Accountability Office may be increasing. While the committee 
remains committed to the right of prospective contractors to 
have an independent forum to adjudicate legitimate concerns 
about improprieties and errors during the bid and proposal 
evaluation process, the committee discourages the use of bid 
protests as a stalling or punitive tactic.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a 
review of bid protests filed with the Government Accountability 
Office during the last five years, which were associated with 
awards made by the Department of Defense. The review shall 
assess the extent to which bid protests may be increasing, the 
extent to which frivolous and improper protests are increasing, 
and the causes of any increase identified. Further, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General to provide 
recommendations regarding actions that could be taken by 
Congress or by the executive branch to disincentivize any 
frivolous or improper bid protests on the part of industry. 
Such recommendations shall discuss the consequences of 
authorizing the Government Accountability Office to dismiss 
protests for a wider range of causes, the imposition of fines 
or other sanctions for the submission of frivolous protests, or 
the inclusion of a vendor's protest track record in all past 
performance evaluations conducted in competitive source 
selections. Finally, the committee directs the Comptroller 
General to submit a report on his review, including his 
recommendations, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

              Iraqi Recipients of Special Immigrant Visas

    In section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), Congress gave the 
President the ability to grant a limited number of special 
immigrant visas to Iraqis who worked for U.S. forces in the 
Republic of Iraq as translators and who might face death if 
they remained in Iraq. This authority was subsequently expanded 
and broadened in section 1244 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
allowing for the issuance of special immigrant visas to more 
Iraqis who worked for coalition forces in Iraq in a variety of 
roles.
    The committee believes that the Iraqi recipients of the 
special immigrant visas possess skills, particularly fluency in 
Arabic and knowledge of the people and culture of Iraq, which 
could be useful while the United States is involved in Iraq. 
Further, the committee notes that many of the recipients of the 
special immigrant visas worked on behalf of the mission of the 
coalition forces for years and often at great risk to 
themselves or their families, and that many Iraqi citizens who 
worked for or with the coalition forces have been threatened or 
killed in Iraq. The committee therefore urges the Secretary of 
Defense to find ways of accessing these recipients of special 
immigrant visas, including utilizing such authorities he may 
have to hire them directly where appropriate and creating 
incentives for private sector contractors to hire them for 
contracts related to Operation Iraqi Freedom when those 
contracts require knowledge of Arabic and Iraq. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report within 90 
days after the date of enactment of this Act to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services on the status of efforts to hire Iraqi recipients of 
special immigrant visas and the status of efforts to encourage 
contractors to hire Iraqi recipients of special immigrant 
visas, and any changes in law that the Secretary considers 
necessary to improve efforts to access the skills of these 
persons.

   Memorandum of Understanding on Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan

    The committee notes that section 861 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), requires the Department of Defense, the Department of 
State, and the United States Agency for International 
Development to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU), 
by July 1, 2008, on contracting in the Republic of Iraq and the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee is aware that 
there are currently four separate control centers in Iraq with 
responsibility for tracking and coordinating contractor 
movements, one operated by the Department of State and three 
operated by the Department of Defense. These overlapping 
contractor movement control centers illustrate the challenge of 
dealing with more than 150,000 contractor personnel working for 
multiple organizations across three agencies. The committee 
expects the MOU to address significant concerns about a lack of 
coordination in contracting, and a corresponding lack of 
accountability, by ensuring that each agency is able to clearly 
identify its roles and responsibilities in the contracting 
process. The committee also expects that the MOU will establish 
mechanisms for agencies to share information and coordinate 
shared contracting responsibilities.
    The committee notes that the MOU signed between the 
Department of Defense and the Department of State on private 
security contractors in December 2007, represents a step 
forward in coordination between the two departments. However, 
the MOU required by section 861 will cover significantly more 
contracts and far more contractor personnel than the MOU 
currently in place. Most critically, the new MOU applies to all 
contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just those involving 
private security contractors. The committee expects that the 
new MOU will be significantly more comprehensive as a result.
    The committee commends the Department of Defense for the 
memorandum issued by the Secretary of Defense on March 10, 
2008, providing guidance on the application of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice to contractor personnel. The memorandum 
effectively implements section 552 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364). The committee notes that the new MOU is required to 
address the responsibility of each signatory agency in ensuring 
that U.S. laws are enforced for contractor personnel during 
overseas operations.

               Preservation of the Tool and Die Industry

    The committee believes that a robust tool and die industry 
is a fundamental building block for manufacturing that requires 
tools to make parts, measure them, and assemble them into 
finished products. The committee further notes that the tool 
and die industry makes products that range in complexity. 
Without tooling, the foundation of manufacturing disappears and 
the United States' ability to develop new products and build 
them becomes severely compromised. Foreign competition and the 
resulting contraction in the U.S. tooling industry has 
displaced high-skilled workers and forced the closure of nearly 
half of the domestic tool shops. The committee is concerned 
that the ability to develop new defense products and 
manufacture them in the near future may be limited by the 
capacity of the domestic tool and die industry.
    Consequently, the committee encourages the Secretary of 
Defense to develop a roadmap to preserve critical capabilities 
within the tool and die industry necessary for the manufacture 
of defense components. The Secretary should consider the 
following elements for such a roadmap: identifying and 
assisting domestic companies that produce dies and molds; 
incentivizing companies to utilize domestic engineering, 
machining and manufacturing resources for producing Department 
of Defense components and parts; working with automotive tool 
shops through collaboration with other elements of the defense 
supply chain, such as technology fairs or demonstrations; and 
investing in additional research and development for critical 
defense technologies, such as the techniques for forming and 
welding advanced light-weight materials.

                      Service Contractor Inventory

    Section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), requires an annual 
inventory of activities performed pursuant to contracts for 
services for, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense (DOD). 
The committee understands that the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has been tasked with 
the responsibility for developing this service contracting 
inventory and intends to undertake a pilot survey with 
professional services contracts. The committee notes that two 
similar reporting requirements were included in previous 
legislation, including section 343 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), and 
section 345 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107). The committee notes, 
however, that the inventory mandated by section 807 is intended 
to be of much broader scope than those that were previously 
performed, should cover all service contracts, and should not 
be limited to simply capturing data from the Federal 
Procurement Data System.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Army has 
undertaken an extensive manpower and costing inventory of all 
Army service contractors. In September 2002, the Army's 
inventory was designated as the DOD pilot to test manpower and 
cost reporting by the Business Initiatives Council (BIC). The 
BIC expected the Army's pilot to provide much better visibility 
to the government on the contractor work force. The Army 
inventory captures data not only on contracting organizations, 
but the components administering the contract as well as the 
funding source for the contract and the number of full time 
contractor equivalent employees. The committee recommends that 
the Army inventory be used as a model for implementation of 
section 807.
    The service contracting inventory also is intended to be 
used as a tool to allow commanders to consider in-sourcing 
contracts, particularly of functions that are inherently 
governmental or are considered to be closely associated with 
inherently governmental functions. The in-sourcing of contracts 
was authorized under section 324 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). 
The committee, however, encourages commanders to undertake in-
sourcing activities whenever appropriate and not rely solely 
upon the service contractor inventory to determine which 
functions may be in-sourced.

                        Small Business Programs

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has experienced a decline in performance in fulfilling small 
business contracting goals. Data for fiscal year 2006 indicates 
that the Department saw a decline in total awards of prime 
contracts to small business as well as a decline in the 
percentage of awards made to small businesses. In fiscal year 
2006, the Department also fell short of its goal for woman-
owned small businesses, historically underutilized business 
zone small businesses, and for service disabled veteran owned 
small businesses (SDVOSB). The committee strongly supports the 
Department's goal of awarding three percent of total funds to 
SDVOSBs. However, the most recent data indicates that the 
Department awarded less than one percent of total funds to 
SDVOSBs. While the committee notes that awards in 2006 were 
substantially higher than awards to SDVOSBs in 2005, the 
committee continues to urge the Department to exercise all 
reasonable and appropriate options to increase awards to 
SDVOSBs in the current fiscal year and into the future. The 
committee also urges the Department to ensure the accuracy of 
the information used to compile statistics on awards made to 
small business.

         Utilization of Local Businesses for Contracts on Guam

    The committee is aware that local businesses on Guam have 
the potential to make substantial contributions to a wide range 
of contracts required to build, operate, and maintain the 
numerous Department of Defense facilities currently existing on 
Guam and those currently in planning or under construction. The 
committee is also aware that the island of Guam in its entirety 
qualifies as a historically underutilized business zone 
(HUBZone). Businesses on Guam qualify to participate in the 
HUBZone program if they are small businesses, owned and 
controlled by U.S. citizens, with a principal office on Guam, 
and with 35 percent of their employees living in a HUBZone. The 
committee urges the Guam Joint Program Office (JPO) to work 
with the Department of Defense's Office of Small Business 
Programs to ensure that businesses on Guam are fully aware of 
the HUBZone program and the process for qualifying to 
participate in the program. The committee further urges the 
Guam JPO to utilize appropriate HUBZone goals as part of 
detailed small business subcontracting plans for eligible 
contracts on Guam. The committee notes that qualified HUBZone 
businesses qualify for special consideration as prime 
contractors and urges the Guam JPO to utilize HUBZone 
preferences, including HUBZone set-asides, for prime contracts 
where appropriate. The committee also notes that the 
Procurement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) could provide 
valuable assistance to businesses on Guam and urges the Guam 
JPO to explore ways for providing access to PTAP to businesses 
on Guam. The committee expects that the Guam JPO will keep the 
committee informed on progress made in utilizing the HUBZone 
and PTAP programs on Guam.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management


 Section 801--Review of Impact of Illegal Subsidies on Acquisition of 
                             KC-45 Aircraft

    This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force, 
within 10 days after a ruling by the World Trade Organization 
that the United States, the European Union, or both have 
provided an illegal subsidy to a manufacturer of large 
commercial aircraft, to begin a review on the impact of the 
illegal subsidy on the source selection for the KC-45 aerial 
refueling aircraft program. This section would require that the 
review include an opportunity for public comment on the effect 
of illegal subsidies on the program, consultation with experts 
within the federal government on the effect of illegal 
subsidies, and consultation with each of the offerors in the 
source selection process. This section would require that the 
review be completed within 90 days of a final ruling by the 
World Trade Organization on all illegal subsidy cases involving 
large commercial aircraft that are pending as of the date of 
enactment of this Act. This section would further require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to determine whether the illegal 
subsidy had a material impact on the source selection process 
sufficient to bring its fairness into question, and upon making 
such a determination, to take such measures as are necessary 
and appropriate to ensure that the effect of the illegal 
subsidy is removed and the source selection process is fair to 
all offerors. This section would define an illegal subsidy as a 
violation of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade and would include subsidies provided by any 
political subdivision of the United States or any member 
government, subcentral government, or combination of member 
governments of the European Union.

    Section 802--Assessment of Urgent Operational Needs Fulfillment

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
commission a study by a federally funded research and 
development center to assess the effectiveness of the urgent 
operational need requirements generation processes of the 
Department of Defense and the acquisition processes used to 
fulfill such requirements. Within 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
the congressional defense committees the written report 
documenting the key findings and recommendations of the study.

  Section 803--Preservation of Tooling for Major Defense Acquisition 
                                Programs

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
issue guidance requiring that unique tooling associated with 
the production of hardware for a major defense acquisition 
program be preserved and stored through the end of the service 
life of the related weapons system. This section would allow 
the Secretary to waive this requirement in the interest of 
national security and with notice to the congressional defense 
committees.

 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 (WTO), 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. This restriction would not apply to 
any major defense acquisition program that has already received 
milestone B approval. This section would also specify that the 
prohibition on procurement would be lifted after the requested 
consultation is resolved. This section would further allow the 
President to waive the requirement on the basis that doing so 
is necessary to address a significant and imminent threat to 
national security.

  Section 805--Domestic Industrial Base Considerations during Source 
                               Selection

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
issue regulations, within 120 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, to allow a source selection authority to consider 
impacts on the domestic industrial base during source selection 
for a major defense acquisition program. This section would 
authorize defense acquisition officials to impose penalties on 
a contractor who misleads the government regarding potential 
domestic industrial base impacts. This section would require 
the Secretary to report to the congressional defense committees 
if a domestic industrial base evaluation factor is not utilized 
in a competition for a major defense acquisition program.

           Section 806--Commercial Software Reuse Preference

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure contracting officials identify and evaluate, at all 
stages of the acquisition process, opportunities for the use of 
commercial computer software and, if practicable, use such 
software instead of developing new software. This section would 
also require the Secretary to review and revise defense 
regulations to clarify that the existing preference for 
commercial items in the acquisition process includes a 
preference for commercial computer software.

  Section 807--Comprehensive Proposal Analysis Required During Source 
                               Selection

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to issue 
regulations regarding the evaluation of a proposal for a major 
defense acquisition program for which a significant proportion 
of the activities will be performed outside the United States. 
Such regulations would require the potential contractor, or 
subcontractor, to identify costs not borne by the contractor as 
a result of the activities performed outside the United States, 
such as foreign government-borne health care and workers 
compensation. This section would further require a Department 
of Defense contracting officer to consider such costs in 
evaluating any contractor proposal for a cost-based contract, 
and to certify that there are no reasonable grounds to believe 
that the final assessed price excludes any cost that other 
potential contractors could not also elect to exclude.

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


     Section 811--Acquisition Workforce Expedited Hiring Authority

    This section would amend section 1705 of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense with temporary 
expedited hiring authorities for acquisition positions. The 
section would allow the Secretary, in conformance with sections 
3304, 5333, and 5753 of title 5, United States Code, to 
designate acquisition positions as shortage category positions 
and to recruit, appoint, and establish special pay criteria for 
qualified individuals in such positions. The authority would 
expire on September 30, 2012.

  Section 812--Definition of System for Defense Acquisition Challenge 
                                Program

    This section would amend section 2539b of title 10, United 
States Code, to define the term `system' to clarify that the 
term includes both functional systems, such as an avionics or 
fuel system, and also a major system as defined in section 2302 
of title 10, United States Code.

Section 813--Career Path and Other Requirements for Military Personnel 
                        in the Acquisition Field

    This section would add a new section 1722a to title 10, 
United States Code. This section would require the secretaries 
of the military departments, with respect to the military 
departments, and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, with respect to the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the unified combatant 
commands, the defense agencies, and the defense field 
activities to establish policies and issue guidance to ensure 
the proper development, assignment, and employment of military 
personnel in the acquisition field. This section would require 
the policies established and the guidance issued to ensure a 
career path in the acquisition field that attracts the highest 
quality officers and enlisted personnel, a number of command 
positions and senior non-commissioned officer positions 
sufficient to ensure that military personnel have opportunities 
for promotion and advancement in the acquisition field, and a 
number of qualified, trained military personnel in the 
acquisition field sufficient to support requirements for 
military personnel in contingency contracting.
    This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a minimum number of general officer billets reserved 
for acquisition in each of the military departments and within 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the unified combatant 
commands, the defense agencies, and the defense field 
activities, including billets reserved for command of 
contracting organizations. This section would require each 
secretary of a military department to submit an annual report 
to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics on the implementation of this section. This 
section would also require that consideration of general and 
flag officer billets for acquisition be included in the 
strategic plan relating to general and flag officers required 
by section 543 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).

       Section 814--Technical Data Rights for Non-FAR Agreements

    This section would add a new section 2320a to title 10, 
United States Code. This section would require the Secretary of 
Defense to issue policy guidance regarding the negotiation and 
acquisition of technical data rights for agreements that are 
not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 
including other transaction authority agreements authorized by 
section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, and cooperative 
research and development agreements. This section would require 
that program managers for major weapons systems developed under 
such agreements assess long-term technical data requirements in 
accordance with subsection (e) of section 2320, United States 
Code. This section would also require the Secretary to submit a 
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services within 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act regarding the implementation of the 
requirements of subsection (e) of section 2320(e) of title 10, 
United States Code.
    The committee notes that the Department has utilized 
agreements that are not subject to the FAR for the initial 
development and prototyping of certain major weapon systems 
such as the design of naval surface combatants. This section 
would ensure appropriate guidance is in place to assist defense 
acquisition officials during the negotiation of such agreements 
in protecting the rights of the federal government to technical 
data.

  Section 815--Clarification that Cost Accounting Standards Apply to 
         Federal Contracts Performed Outside the United States

    This section would amend section 26 of the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 422) to clarify that 
the cost accounting standards established pursuant to that act 
apply regardless of whether a contract is entered into or 
performed overseas. This section would also require that the 
Cost Accounting Standards Board revise the cost accounting 
standards, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this 
Act, to reflect the application of those standards to overseas 
contracts.

   Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Inherently Governmental Matters


 Section 821--Policy on Personal Conflicts of Interest by Employees of 
                   Department of Defense Contractors

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a policy to prevent personal conflicts of interest in 
defense contracts. This section also would require a standard 
contract clause for inclusion in all solicitations and 
contracts to implement such policy. The committee is concerned 
that contractor employees who work side-by-side with government 
employees are not subject to the same conflict of interest 
provisions as government employees. In the current environment 
of increased reliance on contractors to meet mission 
requirements for the Department of Defense, the committee finds 
this situation problematic. Both the Acquisition Advisory 
Panel, established under section 1423 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), 
and the Government Accountability Office recommended the 
development of policies to address personal conflicts of 
interest. Furthermore, this section would require the 
Department's Panel on Contracting Integrity, established by the 
section 813 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), to consider and 
make recommendations on the feasibility of applying federal 
procurement integrity regulations to contractor personnel.

  Section 822--Development of Guidance on Personal Services Contracts

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop guidance that provides a clear definition of personal 
services contracts and guidance on the use of such contracts. 
The committee is concerned about the apparent growth in the use 
of personal services contracts by the Department of Defense. 
These are contracts characterized by an employer-employee 
relationship between the government and contractor personnel. 
Normally, the Department and all federal agencies are required 
to hire employees in accordance with civil service laws, and 
Part 37.104 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
prohibits the award of personal services contracts unless 
specifically authorized by statute. Despite this prohibition, 
however, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, established under 
section 1423 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), noted that many, if not 
all, agencies have contractors performing activities that are 
considered to be personal services. For example, the Government 
Accountability Office recently observed that the working 
environment for contractors at the Army's Contracting Center of 
Excellence reflected aspects of all six of the FAR criteria for 
assessing the existence of a personal services contract 
(Defense Contracting: Army Case Study Delineates Concerns with 
Use of Contractors as Contract Specialists, GAO-08-360, March 
2008). The Government Accountability Office further noted that 
the distinction between personal and non-personal services 
contracts is murky. The Government Accountability Office also 
observed that the Department of Defense lacks guidance on 
mitigating the risk of a contract becoming one for personal 
services. This section would implement the Government 
Accountability Office findings.

 Section 823--Limitation on Performance of Product Support Integrator 
                               Functions

    This section would require that whenever the Department of 
Defense enters into a performance-based logistics (PBL) 
contract for the purchase of logistics support of a weapon 
system or major end item, the product support integration 
function shall be performed by an employee of the Department 
beginning in fiscal year 2011. The product support integrator 
(PSI) is identified in the PBL Program Manager's Product 
Support Guide as ``an entity performing as a formally bound 
agent . . . charged with integrating all sources of support, 
public and private, defined within the scope of the PBL 
agreements to achieve the documented outcomes.'' The PSI is 
``the single point of accountability for integrating all 
sources of support necessary to meet the agreed to support/
performance metrics'' of the PBL contract. The committee 
believes this is an inherently governmental function.

                Subtitle D--Defense Industrial Security


       Section 831--Requirements Relating to Facility Clearances

    This section would add a new section 438, relating to 
requirements for facility clearances, to a new subchapter on 
defense industrial security in title 10, United States Code. 
This section would provide statutory authority for existing 
industrial security regulations by requiring a contractor of 
the Department of Defense to obtain a facility clearance in 
order to be granted custody of classified information, and 
would enhance some contractor security practices and Department 
authorities, including granting the Secretary of Defense 
authority to revoke or suspend a facility clearance by the 
Department at any time. Additionally, this section would 
condition an entity's facility clearance upon the entity's 
compliance with the following requirements: safeguarding of 
classified information; safeguarding covered controlled 
unclassified information; adherence to Department security 
agreements, contract provisions regarding security, and 
relevant Department industrial security regulations; and 
employing business and management practices that do not result 
in the compromise of classified information or adversely affect 
the performance of classified contracts.
    The committee notes that some entities presently holding 
facility clearances already carry out these responsibilities. 
The committee believes that this is a best practice that should 
apply to all entities holding facility clearances. The 
committee encourages the Department to generate and share best 
practices with all entities holding facility clearances to 
enhance compliance with these requirements. This section would 
also require an entity granted a facility clearance to provide 
a certification of security responsibility to the Secretary of 
Defense affirming the entity's responsibility to adopt policies 
and practices necessary to safeguard classified information and 
the performance of classified contracts. This certification 
would include a requirement to appropriately manage the 
entity's subcontractors and suppliers performing work on 
classified contracts.
    This section would further require that the members of a 
covered entity's board of directors ensure, in their capacity 
as fiduciaries, that the covered entity comply with the 
requirements in this section. The Secretary of Defense may 
waive this requirement for reasons of national security. The 
committee notes that the National Industrial Security Program 
Operating Manual (NISPOM) makes a similar requirement for some 
entities holding a facility clearance, and that these entities 
have a strong record of compliance with the Department's 
industrial security regulations. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to require that an entity, 
subject to the approval of its board of directors, designate an 
employee who would be responsible for the covered entity's 
compliance with this section. The committee notes that this 
section is similar to the responsibilities assigned to the 
Facility Security Officer and the Technology Control Officer 
outlined in sections 1-201 and 2-306 in the NISPOM.
    This section would further require entities with facility 
clearances to notify the Secretary of Defense of events which 
would affect the clearance or compromise classified 
information.

          Section 832--Foreign Ownership Control or Influence

    This section would add a new section 439 to title 10, 
United States Code, relating to foreign ownership, control, and 
influence (FOCI) of entities with facility clearances. This 
section would define FOCI consistent with current regulations 
as a foreign interest with the power, direct or indirect, 
whether or not exercised, and whether or not exercisable 
through the ownership of the entity's securities, by 
contractual arrangements or other means, to direct or decide 
matters affecting the management or operations of that entity 
in a manner that may result in compromise of classified 
information or the performance of a classified contract. This 
section would require the Secretary of Defense to consider 
several factors to determine whether and how to mitigate the 
FOCI of the entity. These FOCI factors are similar to current 
regulations; however, they also require consideration of the 
role of hedge funds, joint ventures, and positions on an 
entity's board of directors when determining whether an entity 
is under FOCI.
    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
impose any security method, safeguard, or restriction the 
Secretary believes necessary to ensure that the entity complies 
with the general requirements for facility clearances. This 
section would also require an entity under FOCI to establish a 
government security committee on the entity's board of 
directors to oversee compliance with industrial security 
regulations and to oversee the entity's security manager. The 
committee believes the Department's current framework for 
establishing government security committees is very effective 
and represents an organizational structure that ensures 
compliance with Department industrial security regulations. 
This section would allow an entity under FOCI to maintain a 
facility clearance for up to nine months as long as such entity 
is negotiating mitigation measures with the Secretary and there 
is no indication that classified information is at risk of 
compromise. This section would also require an entity to notify 
the Secretary of any material change to information submitted 
by the entity relating to FOCI. The committee notes that this 
notification would apply to changes in the information 
currently provided in the certificate pertaining to foreign 
interests filed by the entity. This section would further 
require an entity to notify the Secretary of any proposed 
merger, acquisition, or takeover by a foreign person.

 Section 833--Congressional Oversight Relating to Facility Clearances 
        and Foreign Ownership Control or Influence; Definitions

    This section would add new sections 440 and 440a to title 
10, United States Code, to ensure congressional oversight and 
define terms relating to facility clearances. This section 
would require the Secretary of Defense to notify the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services when a facility clearance is suspended or revoked and 
when an entity with a facility clearance has entered into 
negotiations for a proposed merger, acquisition, or takeover by 
a foreign person. This section would also require the Secretary 
to submit a biannual report on specific, cumulative, and trend 
information on entities holding facility clearances including 
information on foreign ownership, control, and influence of 
such entities, problems with compliance, and information on 
measures taken by the Defense Security Service to address any 
compliance problems. The report would be required to be 
submitted in an unclassified form, with a classified annex if 
necessary. This section would require the Secretary of Defense 
to prescribe regulations to implement the sections in this 
subtitle relating to defense industrial security by September 
1, 2009. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a study on investments in the defense 
industrial base by foreign governments, entities controlled by 
foreign governments, persons of foreign countries, and hedge 
funds.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


   Section 841--Clarification of Status of Government Rights in the 
Designs of Department of Defense Vessels, Boats, Craft, and Components 
                                Thereof

    This section would add a new section, section 7317, to 
title 10, United States Code, to provide that the sole legal 
authority determining government rights in the designs of 
vessels, boats, craft, and components thereof, including hulls, 
decks, and superstructures is either section 2320 of title 10, 
United States Code, or the contract, grant, or cooperative 
agreement under which the item was developed. This section 
would prohibit any claims of exclusive private ownership of 
such designs under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act 
(chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code).

 Section 842--Expansion of Authority to Retain Fees from Licensing of 
                         Intellectual Property

    This section would amend section 2260 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify the authority of the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to register and 
license trademarks that are owned and controlled by the 
government. This section would clarify that the Secretary of 
Defense could use the authority provided in section 2260 to 
register and license trademarks belonging to defense agencies 
and defense field activities. This section would also clarify 
that the Secretary of Homeland Security can issue regulations 
governing the registration and licensing of trademarks owned 
and controlled by the United States Coast Guard.

 Section 843--Transfer of Sections of Title 10 Relating to Milestone A 
                      and Milestone B for Clarity

    This section would rearrange sections 2366a and 2366b of 
title 10, United States Code, relating to certifications of 
milestone decisions for major defense acquisition programs so 
that the section requiring certification of a Milestone A 
decision precedes the section requiring certification of a 
Milestone B decision.

         Section 844--Earned Value Management Study and Report

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense 
conduct a study on the implementation of earned value 
management, the accuracy of earned value data provided by 
suppliers, and ways to measure the success of utilizing earned 
value management to achieve program objectives. This section 
would require the Secretary of Defense to report the results of 
the study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

                 Section 845--Report on Market Research

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2009, on 
the market research conducted by the Secretary in implementing 
section 2377 of title 10, United States Code. This section 
would require that the report identify the total number of 
contracts sampled, representative outcomes of market research, 
training tools developed to assist with market research, 
additional planned actions, and other matters.

   Section 846--System Development and Demonstration Benchmark Report

    This section would require the secretary of a military 
department to submit a system development and demonstration 
benchmark report for each of the following programs: Broad Area 
Maritime Surveillance, Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter, 
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, Aerial Refueling Tanker (KC-45A), 
Presidential Helicopter (VH-71 Increment II), and the unmanned 
aerial vehicle, Warrior--Alpha. The benchmark report would 
include a description of the requirements, estimated 
development cost, program schedule, and other program matters. 
This section would also require semi-annual contract 
performance reports until a full rate production decision is 
made for each program. This section would further require that 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics (USD(AT&L)) establish a Configuration Steering Board 
for each of these programs and to notify the congressional 
defense committees of major cost increases and significant 
schedule delays. Finally, this section would prohibit the 
milestone decision authority from granting approval to proceed 
to low-rate initial production if the system development and 
demonstration costs for such a program grow by more than 25 
percent, or if the program schedule slips by more than 15 
percent. This restriction could be waived if the USD(AT&L) 
certifies to the congressional defense committees that 
proceeding to low rate initial production is in the best 
interest of the Department.

Section 847--Additional Matters Required to be Reported by Contractors 
      Performing Security Functions in Areas of Combat Operations

    This section would amend section 862 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), to include additional requirements for which contractors 
performing security duties are required to file incident 
reports.

               Section 848--Report Relating to Munitions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2009 detailing how certain munitions used by the armed 
forces are procured including any procurement from non-domestic 
sources. This section would require the report to include a 
plan to procure these munitions from domestic sources by 2012.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                     Cyber Command Responsibilities

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
roles and responsibilities of the Air Force Cyber Command 
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. This 
report shall include, but is not limited to:
          (1) The current state of activities at Cyber Command, 
        including staffing levels, mission essential tasks, 
        lines of responsibility within the Air Force, as well 
        as in U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) chain of 
        command;
          (2) A description and expected timeline of the 
        initial operating capability for Cyber Command;
          (3) A description and expected timeline of the 
        planned state for Cyber Command when it reaches full 
        operating capability; and
          (4) A description of the chief technology officer 
        position including roles and responsibilities for the 
        Cyber Command, and how he or she would interact with or 
        support the larger STRATCOM mission and Department of 
        Defense Chief Information Officer.

           Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts 
to monitor and reduce energy consumption by installations and 
fleet vehicles since the passage of the National Energy 
Conservation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-619). The Department's 
adoption of installation energy metrics, innovative funding 
mechanisms, and a governing structure has resulted in the 
achievement of a 30 percent reduction in the energy intensity 
of non-industrial facilities compared with a 1985 baseline. 
While the committee is encouraged by the Department's progress 
managing energy on installations, the committee is concerned 
about the difficulties the Department faces in managing energy 
needed for military operations. The operational use of energy 
imposes significant logistical burdens and operational 
vulnerabilities, increases force protection requirements, and 
amounts to three-quarters of the Department's annual demand.
    According to a study commissioned by the Office of Force 
Transformation and Resources, the energy required for military 
operations has been increasing over time. For example, energy 
demand for the Department's military operations in the Republic 
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan grew from 9 to 
16 gallons per soldier per day from 2005 to 2007. This same 
study cautioned that the heavy logistical burden imposed by 
fuel will, if unchanged, also impede realization of the more-
distributed ``new global posture'' called for in the 2005 
National Defense Strategy and 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. 
The committee is also aware that a February 2008 Defense 
Science Board Task Force report concluded that the Department 
has failed to establish and meet operational energy goals, and 
that lack of leadership is a root cause. Similarly, the U.S. 
Comptroller General issued a March 2008 report recommending 
that the Department establish an overarching organizational 
framework to guide and oversee mobility energy initiatives. The 
committee weighed the recommendations of these studies at a 
hearing on March 13, 2008.
    While the committee commends the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense's identification of energy as one of the Department's 
top 25 transformational priorities, the committee also 
recognizes the challenges in achieving this transformational 
vision. Therefore, the committee includes a provision in 
section 904 of this title that would establish a Director for 
Operational Energy Plans and Programs within the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense and senior operational energy officials 
within each of the military services. The committee also 
includes a provision in section 331 of this Act that would 
require an annual report on operational energy use and 
initiatives to be submitted by the Secretary of Defense acting 
through the Director for Operational Energy Plans and Programs. 
Lastly, the committee believes it would be incumbent upon the 
Director to oversee implementation of the requirements of 
section 332 of this Act that would require consideration of 
fuel logistics support requirements in the planning, capability 
requirements, and acquisition processes.

   Inter-agency transformation of the United States Southern Command

    The United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), with the 
approval of the Secretary of Defense, has moved quickly to 
transform itself into a joint, inter-agency, regional security 
command over the last year. It plans to complete the 
transformation by October 1, 2008. As part of this process, 
SOUTHCOM envisions altering its mission statement and its 
organizational structure and functioning. The combatant command 
(COCOM) plans to alter its current mission of ``conduct[ing] 
military operations and promoting security cooperation to 
achieve U.S. strategic objectives'' to a mission of 
``support[ing] security, stability, and prosperity in the 
Americas.'' Thus, it would elevate stability operations and 
prosperity-generating activities to the same level as the 
security activities for the COCOM mission.
    With regard to the organization itself, SOUTHCOM 
established a director of inter-agency partnering (J9) along-
side SOUTHCOM's eight other joint directorates. The J9 acts as 
the inter-agency ``portal'' for the command, identifying and 
coordinating inter-agency opportunities, and as the facilitator 
of the transformation. Ultimately, SOUTHCOM envisions shifting 
to ``mission-centric'' directorates as African Command is 
implementing, from having Directorates which are based upon 
traditional Joint Staffing. According to SOUTHCOM and with the 
guidance of Joint Forces Command, four new directorates are 
planned: a directorate for strategy and policy; a directorate 
for security and intelligence; a directorate for stability; and 
a directorate for inter-agency partners. These four directors 
would be supported by two offices, one for resources and 
management, and one for enterprise support. In addition, the 
command wishes to expand its efforts in public-private 
cooperation and international partnerships to the extent 
legally permissible. Eventually, SOUTHCOM would like to become 
``the regional focus point for policy implementation'' for 
inter-agency efforts in their geographic area of 
responsibility.
    Although the committee generally supports the efforts of 
SOUTHCOM to transform itself to meet the twenty-first-century 
challenges in the Western Hemisphere more effectively, the 
committee does have a series of concerns about the implications 
of these changes. Chief among these concerns are:
          (1) The concept for how the four new, mission-centric 
        directorates that are planned for SOUTHCOM will 
        interface laterally with other COCOMs that maintain 
        traditional joint directorate structures and vertically 
        with the Joint Staff at the Pentagon;
          (2) The duties and responsibilities of the two 
        proposed deputy commanders for SOUTHCOM;
          (3) A description of the warfighting chain of 
        command, as required under title 10, United States 
        Code, from the commander of SOUTHCOM down to the 
        proposed joint operations center of the security and 
        intelligence directorate, as well as the coordination 
        of this center with the proposed stability directorate 
        and the inter-agency partnering directorate;
          (4) SOUTHCOM's plan to manage and evaluate its 
        internal transformation, including measures of 
        progress;
          (5) The role of the Department of State, the United 
        States Agency for International Development, the 
        Millennium Challenge Corporation, and other foreign 
        assistance agencies in the delivery of assistance by 
        SOUTHCOM and other COCOMs;
          (6) The appropriateness of including the economic 
        welfare of a region, in this case Central and South 
        America and the Caribbean, within the core of the 
        COCOM's mission;
          (7) The role the Department of Defense generally, and 
        the COCOMs more particularly, should have in 
        establishing foreign assistance policy as part of the 
        foreign assistance process at the Department of State 
        or as part of the inter-agency process led by the 
        National Security Council; and
          (8) The Department's plan to incorporate lessons 
        learned from SOUTHCOM's inter-agency transformation 
        into other COCOMs aside from United States African 
        Command.
    In light of these concerns, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to submit a written response to the committee's concerns 
by July 31, 2008. The response shall be submitted to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed 
Services.

        Long-Term Nature of Business Transformation Agency Work

    The Business Transformation Agency was established to 
continuously guide the Department's efforts at business 
improvement. The committee is aware that there are elements 
within the Department that may view the Business Transformation 
Agency as a transient organization and are making resource and 
staff allocations based on that view. The committee is 
concerned that decisions have not been made to size 
appropriately the senior workforce, first and foremost by 
making permanent many of the senior executive service billets. 
The committee believes that such a decision should be made 
before the change of administration to ensure that the Business 
Transformation Agency is able to attract and retain the right 
quality of personnel and to position the agency for success in 
the future.

         Planning Assumptions on the Level of Contract Support

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
begun reviewing the contractor support in operations and 
contingency plans, including the requirements for contractor 
services as well as the standards for supporting contractor 
personnel in forward areas. The committee further notes that 
according to guidance published by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs 
of Staff (CJCSM 3122.03c), operational plans are to include 
information on contracted services needed to support the plan. 
The plans are to include a list of the contracts likely to be 
used in theater and the capabilities they bring. The committee 
notes that it would be useful for the guidance to also include 
information on how award of contracts and management of 
contractors in deployed locations will be conducted.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
status report on implementation of the guidance to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by December 1, 2008.
    Furthermore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense 
to include in the next Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), as 
required by the National Defense Authorization Act for 1996 
(Public Law 104-106), an assessment of the number and types of 
services logistics support contractors necessary to assist with 
implementation of the defense strategy. A detailed analysis on 
the approach used to determine the level of contractor support 
should be included as an appendix to the QDR.

                       Quadrennial Defense Review

    The committee expects that the next report of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), as required by section 118 of 
title 10, United States Code, will be delivered to Congress in 
2010. The committee encourages Department of Defense (DOD) 
officials to take the opportunity provided by the requirement 
of the review to carefully adhere to the requirements described 
in that section. In recent years, the committee has noted that 
the QDR process has become more constrained by assumptions 
regarding resources and budgets than the statute requires. 
Furthermore, the committee believes that the QDR reports have 
not clearly articulated the substantive national security 
assumptions required in the statute or the rationales 
underlying those assumptions. As a result, those reports have 
been of limited usefulness to the committee as it conducts its 
oversight role relating to overarching DOD strategy and force 
transformation.

                      United States Africa Command

    The committee has watched with great interest the 
establishment and development of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). 
The committee notes that while there is no statutory 
requirement for the Department of Defense to consult with 
Congress before making such a substantial change to the Unified 
Command Plan, Congress is nevertheless responsible for 
providing AFRICOM with the resources it requires for success. 
Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, also has its own 
perspective on what is in the national interests of the United 
States. Therefore, the committee believes that an opportunity 
to provide input to the Department of Defense during the 
conception and early phases of development of the command would 
have been beneficial to all.
    The committee understands that AFRICOM currently defines 
its mission as better enabling ``the Department of Defense and 
other elements of the U.S. Government to work in concert and 
with partners to achieve a more stable environment in which 
political and economic growth can take place . . . [and will 
help] coordinate U.S. Government contributions on the 
continent.'' The committee further understands that a stable 
Africa is in the national interests of the United States. 
Nevertheless, the committee finds that within the command's 
mission statement, it has listed a variety of tasks that appear 
to depart from traditional Department of Defense (DOD) 
missions, including medical HIV/AIDS assistance, humanitarian 
assistance, and disaster relief. The diplomatic and cultural 
environment on the continent of Africa is extremely varied and 
complex. While the Department of Defense has always played a 
role in those sorts of tasks, the committee is concerned that 
AFRICOM might become the primary agent of U.S. efforts in those 
areas when they might be better served by other agencies or 
departments taking the lead.
    Given these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the 
heads of any other federal agencies or departments the 
Secretary of Defense determines appropriate, to submit, not 
later than one week prior to AFRICOM assuming full operational 
capability, a report 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 final determination of the full set of roles and 
missions of AFRICOM. The report shall also include a 
description of:
          (1) How United States strategic interests have 
        influenced the size and scope of the U.S. military 
        footprint on the continent and the effect the creation 
        of AFRICOM will have on future U.S. military operations 
        in Africa;
          (2) How various African communities, regional 
        organizations like the African Union, major non-
        governmental organizations that operate in Africa, and 
        other foreign countries, including the People's 
        Republic of China and the European nations, which have 
        played roles on that continent, view the establishment, 
        roles, and missions of AFRICOM;
          (3) AFRICOM's anticipated involvement in 
        stabilization and reconstruction activities in Africa, 
        and the cost-sharing agreements, if any, with the 
        Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International 
        Development, and other agencies, relating to those 
        activities;
          (4) The anticipated total cost of establishing this 
        command, including facilities and infrastructure 
        improvements, personnel, equipment, force protection, 
        permanent change of station and other related costs, 
        any cooperative or cost-sharing agreements with other 
        Defense Department entities like United States European 
        Command, and any cost-sharing arrangement with other 
        non-DOD departments and agencies; and
          (5) Any challenges that AFRICOM may have in filling 
        the inter-agency positions in the command.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management


     Section 901--Revisions in Functions and Activities of Special 
                           Operations Command

    This section would revise the statute governing special 
operations activities to accurately reflect current mission 
requirements of Special Operations Command. This section would 
urge greater emphasis on unconventional and irregular warfare, 
as well as counterterrorism and counterinsurgency missions.

 Section 902--Requirement to Designate Officials for Irregular Warfare

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
designate a single Executive Agent within the Department for 
the development and execution of irregular warfare activities. 
This section would also require the Secretary to designate an 
Assistant Secretary of Defense to exercise responsibility for 
overall management and coordination of these activities.

    Section 903--Plan Required for Personnel Management of Special 
                           Operations Forces

    This section would require the Commander, Special 
Operations Command, to develop and provide to congressional 
defense committees a plan to ensure proper personnel management 
of special operations forces. This section would require 
submission of the plan within 30 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

     Section 904--Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs

    This section would establish a Director of Operational 
Energy Plans and Programs within the Department of Defense to 
develop and oversee implementation of a strategy for managing 
the energy required for moving and sustaining military forces 
and weapons platforms for military operations. In addition, 
this section would require the secretaries of the Army, Navy, 
and Air Force to designate a senior official accountable for 
their service's operational energy programs.

   Section 905--Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives for the 
                          Military Departments

    This section would require the Assistant Secretary of each 
military department with responsibility for acquisition, 
technology, and logistics to designate an employee of the 
military department to act as the senior official to coordinate 
department-level Corrosion Prevention and Control Program 
activities. The service corrosion executive would coordinate 
Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) within the military 
department and with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
military service program executive offices, materiel commands, 
and major service commands. This section would provide the 
corrosion executive with the CPC coordination authority 
necessary to assure the sustained performance, readiness, 
economical operation, and service life of military systems and 
equipment, including participation in materiel development, 
acquisition, fielding, operation, and storage processes. The 
service corrosion executive would be the military department's 
CPC principal point of contact to the Department of Defense 
corrosion executive designated in section 2228 of title 10, 
United States Code.

       Section 906--Alignment of Deputy Chief Management Officer 
                            Responsibilities

    This section would rectify a conflict in the chain of 
command of the Business Transformation Agency by requiring that 
Director of the Business Transformation Agency report only to 
the Deputy Chief Management Officer. This section would amend 
section 192 of title 10, United States Code, which designates 
joint responsibility for supervising the Business 
Transformation Agency to the Vice Chair of the Defense Business 
Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) and the Deputy Chief 
Management Officer to eliminate the requirement that the 
Business Transformation Agency be supervised by the Vice Chair 
of the DBSMC.

  Section 907--Requirement for the Secretary of Defense to Prepare a 
 Strategic Plan to Enhance the Role of the National Guard and Reserves

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan for enhancing the National Guard and reserves, 
and submit a report on that plan to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
April 1, 2009. This section would require that the plan assess 
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Report of 
the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves of January 
31, 2008, and the provisions of the National Guard Empowerment 
Act, and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2008 (HR 
5603) as introduced in the House of Representatives in the 
110th Congress. This section would further require that the 
plan include any changes to current Department of Defense 
organization, structure, command relationships, budget 
authority, procurement authority, compensation and benefits, 
and any other recommendations for legislation that the 
Secretary of Defense considers necessary.

    Section 908--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 909--Support to Committee Review

    This section makes a number of findings concerning the 
Quadrennial Defense Review and the need for the House Committee 
on Armed Services to review in a bipartisan, thorough manner, 
the military capabilities needed to address challenges to the 
United States. The section further requires the Secretary of 
Defense to provide the House Committee on Armed Services 
information to assist the committee as it reviews U.S. defense 
strategy and other plans within 15 days of the receipt of a 
request for such information.

                      Subtitle B--Space Activities


Section 911--Extension of Authority for Pilot Program for Provision of 
  Space Surveillance Network Services to Non-United States Government 
                                Entities

    This section would extend the expiring authority of the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program that would 
allow non-U.S. Government entities to purchase space 
surveillance network services from assets owned or controlled 
by the Department of Defense through September 30, 2010. The 
current authority would expire on September 30, 2009.

    Section 912--Investment and Acquisition Strategy for Commercial 
                         Satellite Capabilities

    This section would require the Department of Defense to 
conduct an assessment to determine a recommended investment and 
acquisition strategy for commercial satellite capabilities. 
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report 
the results of this assessment by February 1, 2009.

             Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Program


Section 921--Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Commissions in 
                         Colorado and Kentucky

    This section would authorize the Program Manager for the 
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program to manage and 
fund the Colorado and Kentucky Chemical Demilitarization 
Citizens' Advisory Commissions.

    Section 922--Prohibition on Transport of Hydrolystate at Pueblo 
                        Chemical Depot, Colorado

    This section would prohibit the transportation of 
hydrolysate byproduct from the chemical demilitarization (Chem-
Demil) facility at Pueblo, Colorado, at any time during fiscal 
year 2009. This section would also require the Secretary of 
Defense to provide a comprehensive comparative cost-benefit 
analysis with regard to on-site and off-site treatment 
methodologies. This section would require this information to 
be provided to the congressional defense committees by February 
15, 2009.
    The committee notes that a delay in program execution has 
extended the Chem-Demil effort beyond the original target 
completion date of April 29, 2007. The committee also notes 
that the budget request for fiscal year 2009 assumes a program 
completion date in year 2023. The committee recognizes the 
additional delay as resulting in part from programmatic 
uncertainty and management irregularities, legal challenges, 
and insufficient resources. The committee believes inadequate 
programmatic consistency, discipline, and rigor has also 
contributed to the current state of affairs.
    The committee understands the Department has initiated a 
comparative cost analysis with regard to on-site and off-site 
disposal methodologies in the Assembled Chemical Weapons 
Alternatives program, an independent component of the overall 
Chem-Demil effort. The committee expects this cost assessment 
to be completed in an expeditious manner and address, among 
other things, transportation requirements, potential 
litigation, and possible clean-up recovery needs in times of 
spills or other accidents.
    The committee urges the Department to provide such 
information to the committee as soon as possible and requires 
its delivery by February 15, 2009.

                Subtitle D--Intelligence-Related Matters


Section 931--Technical Changes Following the Redesignation of National 
 Imagery and Mapping Agency as National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

    This section would make technical changes to bring the 
United States Code and other laws into conformity with the 
agency name change from National Imagery and Mapping Agency to 
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, as provided for in 
section 921(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136).

  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 make technical changes to reflect in 
various sections of title 10, United States Code, the change 
from ``Director of Central Intelligence'' to ``Director of 
National Intelligence'' and from ``Director of Central 
Intelligence'' to ``Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency.''

Section 933--Technical Amendments Relating to the Associate Director of 
                      the CIA for Military Affairs

    This section would amend section 528(c) of title 10, United 
States Code, to change the term ``Military Support'' to 
``Military Affairs.''

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


 Section 941--Establishment of Department of Defense School of Nursing

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a Department of Defense School of Nursing authorized 
by section 955 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). The committee is aware 
of the growing shortage of military medical personnel and 
believes that Department of Defense schools to produce military 
health professionals, such as the recently established Army 
School of Social Work, will have a significant positive impact 
on the shortage. This section would also authorize the 
Secretary to conduct a demonstration project to encourage 
retired military nurses to serve as faculty at civilian nursing 
schools.

Section 942--Amendments of Authority for Regional Centers for Security 
                                Studies

    This section would amend section 184 of title 10, United 
States Code, to make funds authorized under that section in any 
fiscal year available for programs that begin in that fiscal 
year, but end in the following fiscal year, beginning with 
fiscal year 2009. This section would also create a pilot in 
which the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the 
Secretary of State, may waive reimbursement of the costs of 
activities at the Regional Centers up to $1.0 million for 
fiscal year 2009 and 2010 for non-governmental and 
international organization personnel. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report describing 
the extent of nongovernmental and international organization 
participation in the programs of each regional center, 
including the costs incurred by the United States for the 
participation of each organization. The committee notes that 
``international organization personnel'' in this section is 
intended to refer to personnel from non-profit or not-for-
profit entities such as the United Nations, the African Union 
or the European Union, and not international corporations or 
businesses.

   Section 943--Findings and Sense of Congress Regarding the Western 
             Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

    This section would express the sense of congress that the 
Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation 
(WHINSEC) is 1) one of the most effective mechanisms that the 
United States has to build relationships with future leaders 
throughout the Western Hemisphere, influence the human rights 
records and democracy trajectory of countries in the Western 
Hemisphere, and mitigate the growing influence of non-
hemispheric powers; 2) succeeding in meeting its stated mission 
while fostering mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and 
cooperation among the participating nations; and 3) is an 
invaluable education and training facility which the Department 
of Defense should continue to utilize in order to help foster a 
spirit of partnership that will ensure security and enhance 
stability and interoperability among the United States military 
and the militaries of participating nations.

   Section 944--Restriction on Obligation of Funds for United States 
           Southern Command Development Assistance Activities

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense, 
within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
describing the development assistance activities carried out by 
the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and containing: a 
certification that such activities will not negatively impact 
the readiness of SOUTHCOM; do not divert resources from funded 
or unfunded requirements of SOUTHCOM; are not already, or will 
not be, undertaken by other federal departments or agencies; 
and are designed, planned, and conducted as derivative 
activities of SOUTHCOM's warfighting responsibilities under 
title 10 of the United States Code.
    This section would also restrict the obligation or 
expenditure of 10 percent of SOUTHCOM's operation and 
maintenance funds until 30 days after the certification 
required by this section is received by the congressional 
defense committees.

   Section 945--Authorization of Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery 
                              Capabilities

    This section would codify authority for Joint Forces 
Command to act as the Executive Agent for the Non-conventional 
Assisted Recovery Capabilities and authorize the Department to 
develop a personnel recovery program for isolated personnel 
representing all parts of the U.S. Government.

 Section 946--Report on United States Northern Command Development of 
        Interagency Plans and Command and Control Relationships

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
heads of other appropriate federal agencies, to submit a report 
to Congress within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act 
describing progress made in addressing the recommendations of 
the Government Accountability Office regarding the organization 
of the United States Northern Command. This section would also 
require the commander of Northern Command to coordinate with 
other federal agencies to ascertain requirements for plans, 
training, equipment, and resources in support of homeland 
defense; domestic emergency response; and military support to 
civil authorities.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                        Counter-Drug Activities


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1.1 billion for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $189.9 
million, for operational tempo, which is contained within the 
operating budgets of the military services. The budget is 
organized in fiscal year 2009 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 
2009 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows 
(in millions of U.S. dollars):

FY09 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request...............  $1,060.5
International Support.........................................     541.3
Domestic Support..............................................     207.6
Intelligence Technology and Other Demand Reduction............     173.6
Demand Reduction..............................................     138.0
Recommended Decrease..........................................
International Support.........................................       5.0
Recommended Increase..........................................
Southwestern Border Fence.....................................       5.0
Recommendation................................................   1,060.5

                       Items of Special Interest


Budget requests

    The budget request contained $1.1 billion for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities, including all 
counter-narcotics resources in the Department of Defense 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. The committee 
notes that the fiscal year 2009 budget request represents the 
sixth year that the Administration has funded the overwhelming 
majority of counter-narcotics activities in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia through 
the use of emergency budget requests, instead of including 
these amounts in the regular budget request.

International support

    The budget request contained $541.3 million for 
international support. The committee recommends $536.3 million, 
a decrease of $5.0 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.

Self-propelled semi-submersible vessels and low profile vessels without 
        nationality

    The committee recognizes that one of the emerging and most 
significant threats in the forty-two million square mile 
transit zone that includes the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of 
Mexico, and the eastern Pacific Ocean is the use of manned and 
unmanned self-propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) vessels and Low 
Profile Vessels (LPVs) to transport illicit narcotics into the 
United States. Narcotics traffickers in the region have 
increasingly turned to this method of transportation to 
circumvent the effective counter-drug efforts of the United 
States and partner nations have. The committee has significant 
concerns that these vessels represent a potential platform for 
other dangerous cargos and for human trafficking.

Southwest border fence

    The southwest border continues to be a major human and drug 
smuggling corridor into the United States. Since 1990, the 
Department of Defense has been involved in addressing the 
heavily used smuggling corridor in San Diego, California, by 
building physical barriers throughout the region. As a result, 
the number of drug ``drive-throughs'' and the number of 
apprehensions of illegal crossers has greatly diminished. The 
Southwest Border Fence has served as an invaluable counter-
narcotics resource and supports the President's border security 
initiative and makes for more efficient and effective use of 
the national guardsmen deployed in support of Operation Jump 
Start.
    However, the border fence construction project is still 
under construction, and the area remains one of the nation's 
most heavily utilized drug smuggling corridors. Additional 
funds are required to continue work on the fourteen-mile Border 
Infrastructure System near San Diego, California.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million for this purpose.

Temporary expansion of the Joint Inter-Agency Task Force-South

    The United States African Command (AFRICOM) is scheduled to 
establish a counter narco-terrorism (CNT) office by October 1, 
2008. This office will assume responsibility for existing 
programs of the United States European Command (EUCOM) CNT 
office. Given Joint Inter-Agency Task Force-South's (JIATF-S) 
existing capabilities that it has developed over nearly two 
decades, EUCOM-CNT is relying on JIATF-S to provide information 
regarding trans-Atlantic drug events as well as helping to 
establish intelligence analyst support in various U.S. 
embassies in Africa. In addition, it will take a collective 
effort with Western European countries that have years of 
experience in the region, other U.S. Government agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and the United Nations Office on 
Drugs and Crime.
    JIATF-S's primary mission is to detect, monitor, and 
support interdiction of the south-to-north flow of illicit 
drugs and other narco-terrorist threats to the security of the 
United States within the prescribed Joint Operating Area (JOA). 
It also serves as a center for detection and monitoring, as 
well as counter-drug support to U.S. country teams in Latin 
America and the Caribbean. JIATF-S's JOA responsibilities 
currently extend from up to 100 nautical miles from the 
Continental United States (CONUS) for air targets, to the CONUS 
territorial seas for maritime targets, to the U.S. territorial 
seas of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for both air 
and maritime targets and also includes the territory of the 
Bahamas.
    The committee recognizes the efforts of AFRICOM to 
establish an effective counter-narcotics program within the 
command and appreciates AFRICOM's limited resources to do so. 
As an interim measure, the committee recommends that the JOA of 
JIATF-S be expanded to include Africa. The committee recommends 
only a temporary expansion; as opposed to longer term 
expansion, because much of JIATF-S's success is attributable to 
its relatively small area of responsibility. The committee does 
not want to jeopardize ongoing and future operations of the 
task force. Additionally, the committee recommends an increase 
in the number of Tactical Analysis Teams with oversight and 
management by J2. Authorization of funding for this temporary 
expansion would be provided by section 1033 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), as amended by section 1021 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), 
section 1022 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), section 1022 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 109-181), and section 1024 of this Act. The 
committee directs the Commander of AFRICOM to report to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services by March 1, 2009 on: the combatant command's 
overall counter-narcotics strategy; the identification of 
priorities for counter-narcotic efforts in AFRICOM's area of 
responsibility, particularly in West Africa; the role that 
JIATF-S will temporarily play in meeting these objectives; and 
the role of international and regional partnerships in 
executing the same.

                            Other Activities


                             Civil Affairs

    The committee recognizes the growing need within the 
Department of Defense (DOD) for civil affairs skills and 
capabilities across the full spectrum of operations. Current 
operations around the world highlight the continued high demand 
for civil affairs skills and capabilities, placing great strain 
on the availability of personnel who have those skills. 
Therefore, the committee continues to support the plan of U.S. 
Special Operations Command to increase the total civil affairs 
force by three battalions by March 2009.
    Still, the committee notes current departmental policy, as 
stated in DOD Directive 3000.05, that stability operations are 
a core military mission and should be conducted throughout the 
full spectrum of operations. The committee believes this policy 
may lead to even greater demand for civil affairs specialists. 
The committee also understands that the Department has 
reorganized U.S. Army civil affairs units, dividing them 
between the active and reserve components and between special 
and general purpose forces. The committee believes the ultimate 
effects of these steps remains unclear.
    The committee believes that the Department should pay close 
attention to how the roles and requirements for civil affairs 
personnel, skills, and capabilities evolve as the Department 
identifies future stability operations requirements and then 
incorporates stability operations capabilities in the planning 
and execution of full spectrum operations. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the civil 
affairs requirement and role throughout the spectrum of 
operations. The study, at a minimum, should include:
          (1) An analysis of the overall anticipated civil 
        affairs requirement, with a description of how that 
        requirement was determined;
          (2) An analysis of whether the programmed force 
        structure will meet the anticipated requirement;
          (3) An analysis of whether stability operations 
        competencies are being adequately developed in the 
        civil affairs force and whether non-civil affairs 
        general purpose forces are being trained in skills 
        traditionally resident in civil affairs forces in order 
        to carry out stability operations;
          (4) Identification of current proponency for civil 
        affairs and an analysis of whether it is properly 
        placed;
          (5) An analysis of whether the current and planned 
        force mix between the active and reserve components is 
        appropriate given the continued demands for civil 
        affairs units; and
          (6) An analysis of what innovative tools or personnel 
        management policies may be needed to assist in bringing 
        needed civil affairs competencies and experience into 
        the force on a temporary basis.
    The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report of 
findings and recommendations by April 1, 2009, to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services.

            Humanitarian Assistance Requirements of the Navy

    The committee notes the many humanitarian assistance and 
disaster response missions undertaken by the Department of 
Defense each year. The committee is also aware of the central 
role placed on humanitarian assistance and disaster response in 
the new maritime strategy jointly authored by the Navy, Marine 
Corps, and Coast Guard entitled ``A Cooperative Strategy for 
21st Century Seapower.'' The new strategy declares that 
preventing wars is as important as winning wars, and that 
executing the strategy will require globally distributed, 
mission-tailored maritime force packages. The committee 
therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to undertake a 
comprehensive review of current and projected personnel and 
equipment requirements to meet the humanitarian assistance and 
disaster response missions described in the new maritime 
strategy. The committee further directs the Secretary to review 
current naval vessels that perform this mission, assess their 
current and future viability, and prepare an analysis on the 
potential benefit of building new humanitarian assistance 
platforms based on existing vessels including, but not limited 
to, the T-AKE and LPD-17 hull forms. The committee directs the 
Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, to prepare and submit a report on these 
reviews, including any comments the Secretary considers 
necessary regarding the consistency of this maritime strategy 
with the national military strategy and the report of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, among other related strategy 
documents, to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 
2009.

      Inclusion of Non-Lethal Capability in Defense Civil Support 
                           Requirements Plan

    In connection with the Department's mission for defense 
support to civil authorities, the committee notes that section 
1815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181) requires the Secretary of Defense to 
identify the military-unique capabilities required by the 
military services, including the reserve component, the joint 
commands, and defense agencies, to support civil authorities in 
an incident of national significance or catastrophic event. The 
committee urges the Department to comply with section 1815 and 
encourages the Department to determine whether there are non-
lethal capability requirements for domestic homeland defense 
and defense support to civil authorities' missions.

   Long-Term Plans for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

    Section 923 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) requires the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD/I) to provide a 
``Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) 
Integration Roadmap'' to guide the development and integration 
of Department of Defense (DOD) ISR capabilities from 2004 
through 2018. The USD/I, in his 2005 and 2007 Roadmap updates, 
has yet to provide all of the elements required by section 923. 
Specifically, the ISR Roadmap has not addressed: how DOD 
intelligence information could enhance the Department's role in 
homeland security; how counter-intelligence activities of the 
armed forces and DOD intelligence agencies could be better 
integrated; and how funding authorizations and appropriations 
could be optimally structured to best support development of a 
fully integrated ISR architecture. Moreover, the Roadmap does 
not provide a sufficient level of detail to enable ISR decision 
makers to prioritize different needs and assess progress in 
achieving strategic goals. The lack of a long-term, 10-15 year, 
vision of what ISR capabilities are required to achieve 
strategic goals also makes it difficult for the Department to 
assess investment options to achieve the most efficient and 
effective use of ISR capabilities and make informed decisions 
on an appropriate mix of national overhead systems, such as 
satellites and manned and unmanned platforms. As a result, the 
Department is making considerable investments in unmanned 
aircraft systems without the benefit of a longer-term vision. 
Furthermore, the Department has not yet addressed all of the 
management aspects required to be addressed by section 923 in 
its Roadmap.
    The committee continues to be concerned that joint 
requirements be integrated to provide required capabilities to 
warfighters as efficiently and effectively as possible. The 
committee is aware of the Department's effort to develop a 
vision of a future ISR architecture that is based on an 
independent analysis of expected future requirements and 
strategic goals and that looks at future requirements for a 
time period beyond the Future Years Defense Program. As it 
develops this future ISR architecture, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense 
committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and 
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by March 
15, 2009, on its determination of: (1) the appropriate mix of 
national overhead systems and manned and unmanned airborne 
platforms to achieve strategic goals that is based on an 
analysis of future ISR demand; and (2) a comprehensive set of 
metrics to assess ISR effectiveness in meeting the Department's 
strategic goals. Further, the report shall include sufficiently 
detailed information on the Department's vision of a future ISR 
architecture to enable Congress to understand the bases for the 
Department's assessment of and prioritization of capability 
gaps and overlaps, enable decision makers to address tradeoffs 
between competing needs, and assess progress in achieving ISR 
strategic goals. The report shall also be consistent with and 
reflect the Secretary's efforts to comply with section 942 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181). Finally, the report shall include 
detailed recommendations on how funding authorizations and 
appropriations can be structured to support a fully integrated 
ISR architecture.
    In addition, the committee directs the Secretary to include 
information in all future funding requests that explains how 
each request fits into the Department's ISR architecture 
without unnecessary duplication or overlapping with existing 
systems or capabilities.

                    National Language Service Corps

    The committee remains committed to expanding the Department 
of Defense foreign language and cultural awareness 
capabilities. The committee supports the launch of the National 
Language Service Corps pilot program as part of the broader 
Department of Defense commitment to the President's National 
Security Language Initiative. This effort will identify 
Americans with skills in critical languages and develop the 
capacity to mobilize them during times of national need or 
emergency. The National Language Service Corps represents the 
first organized national attempt to capitalize on our rich 
diversity in language and culture. This pilot organization 
began recruiting in January 2008 and has a goal of creating a 
cadre of 1,000 highly proficient people, in 10 languages by 
2010. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by February 15, 2009, on the 
status of the implementation of the program and future plans to 
institutionalize and make any recommendations regarding the 
possible expansion of the program beyond the pilot phase.

                   Nuclear Weapons Inventory Control

    The committee views the inadvertent transfer of weapons 
from Minot Air Force Base (AFB) to Barksdale AFB in August 
2007, and the discovery in March 2008, that nose cones for 
Minuteman III missiles were mistakenly shipped to the Republic 
of China on Taiwan in 2006 as grave errors. These incidents 
raise significant concerns about the inventory control 
exercised over the nation's nuclear weapons and weapons 
components.
    The Minot AFB-Barksdale AFB transfer prompted the Secretary 
of Defense to charge the Defense Science Board (DSB) Permanent 
Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Surety to review the Department's 
weapons inventory control processes and procedures. In its 
February 2008 report, ``Unauthorized Movement of Nuclear 
Weapons,'' the DSB Task Force noted the incident ``dramatized 
the need for uncompromising processes and procedures, clear 
focus on the unique demands of the enterprise at multiple 
levels of the national security structure, and an environment 
that attracts, nurtures and guides the right numbers of the 
best and brightest as stewards of this uniquely powerful 
national security force.'' The task force concluded, ``There 
are currently significant deficiencies in meeting each of those 
needs.''
    While the investigation of the nose cone shipments is 
ongoing, the committee notes that an inter-agency review is 
warranted of the inventory controls protecting the nation's 
nuclear weapons and weapons components. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
Energy to jointly prepare a report on the steps the Department 
of Defense and the Department of Energy plan to take to address 
the deficiencies and recommendations included in the February 
2008, DSB report, and any that result from the ongoing 
investigation of the nose cone shipment to Taiwan. The report 
shall also include an assessment of new technologies that might 
be deployed to augment existing inventory control processes and 
strengthen human controls. The report shall be transmitted to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services within 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

 Oversight of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Proposals 
                          for New Capabilities

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in its 
March 2008 report, ``Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance'' (ISR) that the Department can better assess 
and integrate ISR capabilities and oversee development of 
future ISR requirements. Specifically, it noted that the Joint 
Capabilities Integration and Development System's Functional 
Capabilities Board charged with oversight of new ISR 
requirements has not worked proactively with sponsors of new 
capability proposals or ensured that the sponsors completed 
capabilities-based assessments that thoroughly assess 
alternatives to new materiel solutions to ISR needs as called 
for in joint guidance. The Government Accountability Office 
found in a review of 19 new ISR capabilities proposed by 
service and agency sponsors, that 12 sponsors did not complete 
assessments, and the completeness of the remaining sponsors' 
assessments varied.
    In its response to the GAO report, the Department agreed 
with the Government Accountability Office's recommendations to 
improve the availability of information on current capabilities 
and those in development to assist sponsors and reviewers in 
determining capabilities already developed or proposed and the 
implementation of oversight activities by the Joint Staff's 
Battlespace Awareness Functional Capabilities Board. However, 
the Department disagreed with the Government Accountability 
Office's recommendation to review staffing and expertise levels 
of the Board and to take steps to address capability 
shortfalls, if any, because a recent review had found no 
shortfalls, even though lack of adequate numbers of qualified 
staff was cited by some defense officials as a reason that 
oversight activities were not implemented as called for in 
Joint Staff guidance. The committee agrees with Government 
Accountability Office that the Department should reexamine its 
process and staffing needs as a part of improving oversight 
activities.
    The committee directs the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff to report to the congressional defense committees, the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by March 1, 2009, on 
the steps taken to assist military service and agency sponsors 
in developing proposals for new ISR capabilities that are 
informed by current information on all ISR capabilities that 
may be available and to ensure that the Functional Capabilities 
Board receives complete assessments to support the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council's investment decisions. In 
addition, in light of the improved oversight practices the 
Department plans to implement, the committee directs that the 
report reassess the number of personnel and skills required to 
perform thorough reviews of ISR capability proposals and report 
to Congress the methodology and results of the assessment.

Strengthening Inter-Agency Stabilization and Reconstruction Contingency 
                                Planning

    The committee is concerned with the lack of progress in the 
implementation of the inter-agency planning framework called 
for in National Presidential Security Directive--44. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
with the Secretary of State, to accelerate efforts to develop a 
framework for integrating inter-agency stabilization and 
reconstruction contingency planning with military operational 
and contingency planning. The committee further encourages the 
Secretary of Defense to promulgate a concept of operations for 
improving the integration of the inter-agency into this 
stabilization and reconstruction contingency planning in every 
phase at the combatant command, joint task force, and major 
subordinate command levels.

                  Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to review and 
determine whether the designation of one military department as 
executive agent for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) would serve 
as the best means for eliminating duplication of effort and 
enhancing interoperability. In lieu of establishing an 
executive agent for UAS, in October 2007, the Department 
created a UAS Task Force to coordinate critical UAS issues and 
to develop a way ahead to enhance operations, enable inter-
dependencies, and streamline acquisition. The Task Force has 
established focused teams and assigned lead organizations to 
address several UAS acquisition and management issues that 
include interoperability, airspace, frequency and spectrum 
utilization, and payload and sensor management. A senior 
steering group has also been established to periodically assess 
progress on the goals established for the Task Force and to 
address unresolved issues. Notwithstanding these efforts, the 
Department continues to face challenges in the management and 
operational use of UASs. These challenges included the lack of 
an oversight framework and strategic plan to guide development 
and investment decisions in UASs and coordinate those efforts 
with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 
related manned and unmanned capabilities like Constant Hawk, 
Angel Fire, and unmanned airship systems that have been fielded 
to meet current exigencies.
    To ensure that the Department makes progress in overcoming 
UAS acquisition and management challenges, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional 
defense committees, the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence, and House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence with an annual report on the Department's progress 
in addressing UAS challenges. The report shall include, at a 
minimum, information on the issues being addressed by the Task 
Force, progress made in coordinating UAS issues within UAS 
programs, between UAS and ISR-related manned and unmanned 
capabilities, and its recommendations to address existing 
issues. In addition, the report shall describe the actions that 
the Department has taken to implement the Task Force's 
recommendations and milestones for completing any unresolved 
recommendations.

                         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 
2009 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the 
total amount of transferred under this authority to $4.0 
billion. This section would also require prompt notification to 
Congress of each transfer made.

Section 1002--Requirement of Separate Display of Budget for Afghanistan

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, for 
any annual or supplemental budget request of the Department of 
Defense, to clearly and separately set forth any funding 
requested for any U.S. operations or other activities 
concerning the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan at the 
appropriation account level, and at the program, project, or 
activity level. This section would further require the budget 
submission to include a separate detailed description of the 
assumptions underlying the funding request. Such assumptions 
should include, to the extent possible: anticipated troop 
levels; operating tempo; and reset requirements.
    The committee believes that budget request submissions by 
the Department of Defense for Afghanistan have lacked 
transparency, in part, given the Department's combined 
submissions for the Republic of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
countries in the war on terrorism without separate dedicated 
line items for Afghanistan. This section will enable the 
committee to provide the level of oversight on funding for 
Afghanistan that is necessary.

   Section 1003--Requirement for Separate Display of Budget for Iraq

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, for 
any annual or supplemental budget request of the Department of 
Defense, to clearly and separately set forth any funding 
requested for the Republic of Iraq at the appropriation account 
level, and at the program, project, or activity level. This 
section would further require the budget submission to include 
a separate detailed description of the assumptions underlying 
the funding request. Such assumptions should include, to the 
extent possible: anticipated troop levels; operating tempo; and 
reset requirements.

      Section 1004--One Time Shift of Military Retirement Payments

    This section would delay in the year 2013, one percent of 
the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees provided by 
section 1461 of title 10, United States Code. The delay in 
payment would occur in September 2013 and would be restored in 
a one-time lump sum in October 2013. It would also transfer 
$40.0 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction 
Fund to the Miscellaneous Receipts Fund of the United States 
Treasury.

          Subtitle B--Policy Relating to Vessels and Shipyards


      Section 1011--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Aransas Pass, Texas

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
sell the yard floating drydock AFDL-23 to Gulf Copper Ship 
Repair, the current lessee of the drydock. This vessel would be 
sold at fair market value and take into account the amounts 
paid by, or due and owing from, the lessee. The Secretary of 
the Navy would be authorized to set additional terms and 
conditions on the transfer as the Secretary considers 
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

  Section 1012--Report on Repair of Naval Vessels in Foreign Shipyards

    This section would amend section 7310 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of the Navy to notify the 
appropriate congressional defense committees when repairs of 
U.S. Navy vessels, including those operated by Military Sealift 
Command and the U.S. Maritime Administration, are to occur at a 
foreign repair facility. The notification would include: a 
legal justification for the scheduled repair in a foreign 
shipyard; the vessel to be repaired; the shipyard contracted or 
designated for the repair; the cost of the repair; the schedule 
for repair; and the homeport or location of the vessel prior to 
its voyage for repair. This section would require the 
notification to be made at least 30 days prior to repairs 
beginning.

Section 1013--Policy Relating to Major Combatant Vessels of the Strike 
                    Forces of the United States Navy

    This section would amend section 1012 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) by requiring that in addition to future ship classes of 
aircraft carriers, major surface combatants, and submarines, 
that assault echelon amphibious ships also must be constructed 
with integrated nuclear power systems if the ship's light 
weight displacement is greater than 15 thousand tons.
    The committee believes the future naval force should not be 
reliant on the availability of fossil fuel for fleet 
operations. Removing the need for access to fossil fuel sources 
significantly multiplies the effectiveness of the entire battle 
force and eliminates the dependence on foreign nation support 
of deployed naval forces.

         Section 1014--National Defense Sealift Fund Amendments

    This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United 
States Code, removing the authority of the Secretary of Defense 
from obligating or expending funds in the National Defense 
Sealift Fund for any other purpose in the National Defense 
Sealift fund that was not authorized by law. In addition this 
section would amend the definition of Department of Defense 
Sealift Vessels to only those vessels specifically authorized 
by Congress to be procured or chartered using funds from the 
National Defense Sealift Fund.

 Section 1015--Report on Contributions to the Domestic Supply of Steel 
           and Other Metals from Scrapping of Certain Vessels

    This section would require that the Secretary of the Navy 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
containing the estimated contribution to the domestic market 
for steel and other metals from the scrapping of certain 
vessels not yet disposed of by the Navy, and a plan for the 
sale and disposal of such vessels.

                  Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities


     Section 1021--Continuation of Reporting Requirement Regarding 
  Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign Counter-drug 
                               Activities

    This section would extend, by one year, the requirement for 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report detailing the 
expenditure of funds by the Secretary during fiscal year 2008 
in direct and indirect support of the counter-drug activities 
of foreign governments. This requirement expired in fiscal year 
2008. The committee notes that the Department of Defense 
continues to increase its level of counter-narcotics assistance 
to foreign law enforcement agencies and militaries in recent 
years. The committee believes that it should provide closer 
oversight of such expenditures.

 Section 1022--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 2008, through fiscal year 2009. 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.

 Section 1023--Extension of Authority to Support Unified Counter-drug 
    and Counter-terrorism Campaign in Colombia and Continuation of 
     Numerical Limitation on Assignment of United States Personnel

    This section would extend the continuation of authorities 
provided in section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), which allows the Department of Defense to support a 
unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and activities 
by organizations designated as terrorist organizations for 
fiscal year 2009. This section would also extend the limitation 
on the number of U.S. military and federally funded civilian 
contractor personnel in the Republic of Colombia through fiscal 
year 2009. Section 1021 limits the number of military personnel 
in Colombia to 800 people and the number of federally funded 
civilian contractors to 600 people. This section would extend 
the authorities for an additional year to provide support to 
Colombian efforts against the three designated, Colombian-based 
Foreign Terrorist Organizations: the Revolutionary Armed Forces 
of Colombia; the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia; and 
the National Liberation Army.

     Section 1024--Expansion and Extension of Authority to Provide 
   Additional Support for Counter-drug Activities of Certain Foreign 
                              Governments

    This section would extend by one fiscal year the duration 
of authority for assistance under section 1033 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), as amended by section 1021 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), 
section 1022 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), and section 1022 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181). The current authority, which would expire 
at the end of fiscal year 2008, enables the Department of 
Defense to provide counter-drug equipment to nations of the 
Western Hemisphere, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.
    This section would expand the list of countries that could 
qualify for assistance under section 1033 to include three West 
African countries which have been recognized by the U.S. 
Government as major transit countries, countries of concern, or 
countries from which significant counter-narcotic activities 
for sub-regions can be conducted. These countries are: the 
Republic of Ghana; the Republic of Guinea-Bissau; and the 
Republic of Senegal. According to the 2008 International 
Narcotics Control Strategy Report of the Department of State, 
Ghana has become a ``significant transshipment point for 
illegal drugs, particularly cocaine from South America, as well 
as heroin from Southeast and Southwest Asia. Europe is the 
major destination, but drugs also flow to South Africa and to 
North America.'' For fiscal year 2008, the President determined 
that Guinea-Bissau, while not a major drug transit or major 
illicit drug producing country, is ``becoming a warehouse 
refuge and transit hub for cocaine traffickers from Latin 
America transporting cocaine to Western Europe.'' The 
Department of Defense has identified Ghana as an ``anchor 
country'' for its emerging counter-narcotic efforts through the 
African Command on the continent.
    This section would increase the funding limitation under 
section 1033 from $60.0 million to $65.0 million for fiscal 
year 2009.
    This section would make a technical correction to section 
1033 to reflect the respective name today of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
    The committee notes that the Department has not fully 
utilized the existing section 1033 authority with regard to all 
of the eligible countries and will again evaluate its use over 
fiscal year 2009.
    The committee also notes that although the Republic of 
Ecuador is currently eligible to receive support under section 
1033, it will consider that country's cooperation with the 
United States on counter-narcotic activities through the 
remainder of fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 to determine 
whether it should remain eligible.

Section 1025--Comprehensive Department of Defense Strategy for Counter-
           narcotics Efforts for West Africa and the Maghreb

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Secretary of State, prepare a counter-
drug plan for all eligible governments under section 1033 for 
fiscal year 2009 and updates thereafter, as well as a region-
wide, counter-drug plan for Africa, with a special emphasis on 
West Africa and the Maghreb.

Section 1026--Comprehensive Department of Defense Strategy for Counter-
          narcotics Efforts in South and Central Asian Regions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2009, that outlines the Department's role, missions, 
objectives, and budget in support of the overall U.S. 
Government counter-narcotics strategy and activities in the 
South and Central Asian regions and other geographically 
proximate countries. The report would also describe measures 
that will be utilized to evaluate the success of these elements 
toward reducing the production and trafficking of illicit 
narcotics in these regions and countries.
    The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense submitted 
a report to the congressional defense committees on September 
24, 2007, updating the inter-agency counter-narcotics plan for 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the South and Central 
Asian regions as directed by the committee in section 1025 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). However, with regard to South 
and Central Asian regions, the committee is concerned that the 
Department has not clearly articulated its role, missions, 
objectives and associated measures of progress for its efforts 
that support the broader U.S. counter-narcotics strategy within 
the South and Central Asian regions. Furthermore, the committee 
notes that the Department has not adequately identified how its 
counter-narcotics efforts in South and Central Asia complement 
the overall U.S. Government counter-narcotics strategy for 
Afghanistan.
    The committee supports the efforts of the Department to use 
counter-narcotics resources to support the U.S. counter-
narcotics strategy in South and Central Asia. However, the 
committee continues to believe that the Department must only 
fund and manage activities within its core mission and must not 
take on leading roles in missions for which with other U.S. 
Government agencies have core responsibilities.

                   Subtitle D--Boards and Commissions


         Section 1031--Strategic Communication Management Board

    This section would require the Department to create a 
Strategic Communication Management Board (SCMB) consisting of 
representation from the services, Joint Staff, combatant 
commands, and from divisions within the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense responsible for strategic communication and public 
diplomacy. Members of the Board will also include interagency 
partners as advisory members. The SCMB's purpose is to 
establish guidance to the Department related to strategic 
communication and military support to public diplomacy and will 
include a charter to assist with the establishment of 
priorities and improving intra- and inter-departmental 
coordination.
    The committee is concerned about the state of strategic 
communication and public diplomacy (SC/PD) efforts within the 
Department of Defense. The committee believes that the 
dissolution of the strategic communication integration group 
(SCIG) was a major setback to the coordination of SC/PD 
efforts. While the SCIG resources and authority may not have 
been adequate to completely manage the Department's SC/PD 
effort, the Board remained a focal point within the Department 
and positively contributed to the effort to mitigate conflict 
and confusion.
    The committee believes that the SCMB's near-term priority 
should be the development of a comprehensive Department-wide 
strategy that can be used to effectively inform and guide the 
disparate and vast community involved in strategic 
communication activities. Such a product should simultaneously 
serve as a Department perspective for informing a more 
comprehensive government-wide strategic communication strategy.

 Section 1032--Extension of Certain Dates for Congressional Commission 
             on the Strategic Posture of the United States

    This section would amend section 1062 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to modify the deadline by which the Congressional 
Commission on U.S. Strategic Posture must report its analysis 
and recommendations. The Commission's final report to Congress 
would be required by March 1, 2009, and an interim report would 
be due by December 1, 2008.

   Section 1033--Extension of Commission to Assess the Threat to the 
         United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack

    This section would extend the operation of the Commission 
to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic 
Pulse (EMP) Attack until March 31, 2012, and require the 
Commission to provide an annual report beginning on March 1, 
2010: (1) assessing the changes to the vulnerability of U.S. 
military systems and critical civilian infrastructures 
resulting from the EMP threat and changes in the threat; (2) on 
the progress, or lack of progress, protecting U.S. military 
systems and critical civilian infrastructures from EMP attack; 
and (3) including Commission recommendations to address the 
threat and protect U.S. military and civilian systems from 
attack.
    This section would authorize up to $3.0 million for the 
Commission's activities in a given year. This section would 
also add two members to the Commission: one appointed by the 
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and one 
appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
    The committee notes that it expects the Commission to 
provide the report focused on the original requirements 
established in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) to 
the committee by the November 30, 2008 deadline.

                    Subtitle E--Studies and Reports


        Section 1041--Report on Corrosion Control and Prevention

    This section would require the Department of Defense, 
through the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, to 
provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2009, 
regarding the potential for improvements in corrosion control 
and prevention in weapons systems by planning for corrosion 
control and prevention earlier in the system requirements and 
acquisition processes. Specifically, the Department would be 
required to examine corrosion control and prevention as a Key 
Performance Parameter, as part of the Joint Capabilities 
Integration and Development System, or for incorporation into 
acquisition strategies. It also would require review of the 
report by the Comptroller General within 60 days of the 
submission of the report.

  Section 1042--Study on Using Department of Defense Modular Airborne 
        Fire Fighting Systems in a Federal Response to Wildfires

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
complete a study on how to utilize, in a cost-effective manner, 
the Department's Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS) 
assets at the initial stages of wildfire-related contingencies 
involving federal response capabilities. This section would 
require the Secretary to report the results of this study to 
the congressional defense committees within six months of the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    The committee commends the Department's MAFFS units, which 
were critical in saving lives and reducing damage during the 
federal response to the Southern California wildfires in 
October and November 2007. The committee notes, however, that 
the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), at times, does not 
use the Department's MAFFS assets when responding to wildfires 
on the basis that using the Department's MAFFS assets is cost 
prohibitive. The committee believes that the current NIFC 
resource allocation system may result in inefficient employment 
distribution and lead to unnecessary risk to life and loss of 
property.
    With regards to future employment of MAFFS assets, the 
committee believes that the maximum federal response should be 
immediately utilized whenever necessary and appropriate. The 
committee further believes the MAFFS capability is an important 
resource and should be available during the early phases of all 
contingencies.

            Section 1043--Study on Rotorcraft Survivability

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense and 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a study on 
Department of Defense rotorcraft survivability, and provide a 
report on the study to the congressional defense committees by 
August 1, 2009.

Section 1044--Studies to Analyze Alternative Models for Acquisition and 
             Funding of Inter-connected Cyberspace Systems

    This section would require concurrent studies by an 
independent federally funded research and development center 
and the Joint Staff to analyze alternative models and recommend 
changes to the present service-based approach for acquisition 
and funding of interconnected systems for network centric 
operations.

         Section 1045--Report on Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
Energy, and the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct a 
review of nonstrategic nuclear weapons world-wide, and submit a 
report to Congress, within 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act on the findings and recommendations of the review.
    The report should include: an inventory of nonstrategic 
nuclear weapons and an assessment of the methods currently used 
to identify, track and monitor these weapons; an evaluation of 
these weapons as deterrents; an assessment of risks associated 
with these weapons; and recommendations for improving the 
security and consolidating, dismantling, and disposing of these 
weapons. The report should be submitted in unclassified form 
but may include a classified annex.

  Section 1046--Study on National Defense Implications of Section 1083

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
study the national defense implications of section 1083 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181).

   Section 1047--Report on Methods Department of Defense Utilizes to 
           Ensure Compliance with Guam Tax and Licensing Laws

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the steps 
that the Department is taking to ensure that all contractors of 
the Department performing work on Guam comply with local tax 
and licensing requirements.

                 Subtitle F--Congressional Recognitions


  Section 1051--Sense of Congress Honoring the Honorable Duncan Hunter

    This section would enumerate the accomplishments of 
Representative Duncan Hunter during his career and express the 
sincere gratitude of Congress and the nation.

Section 1052--Sense of Congress in Honor of the Honorable Jim Saxton, a 
                 Member of the House of Representatives

    This section would enumerate the accomplishments and honor 
the service of Representative Jim Saxton during his 24-year 
career on the House Committee on Armed Services and in the 
House of Representatives, and would express the sincere 
gratitude of Congress and the nation.

  Section 1053--Sense of Congress honoring the Honorable Terry Everett

    This section would honor the leadership and character 
demonstrated by Representative Terry Everett during his 16-year 
career on the House Committee on Armed Services and in the 
House of Representatives, and would express the sincere 
gratitude of Congress and the nation.

  Section 1054--Sense of Congress Honoring the Honorable Jo Ann Davis

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Honorable Jo Ann Davis, a late Representative from Virginia, 
performed her duties with integrity and distinction, served the 
House of Representatives and the American people selflessly, 
and deserves the sincere and humble gratitude of Congress and 
the nation.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


 Section 1061--Amendment to Annual Submission of Information Regarding 
                 Information Technology Capital Assets

    This section would change the requirement to report on 
programs based on life cycle cost, which is difficult to 
estimate for information technology systems, and substitute 
with a requirement based on the need to submit a Capital Asset 
Plan in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget 
Circular A-11, Section 300. This section would synchronize the 
information the Department provides both Congress and the 
Office of Management and Budget for reporting on major 
Department of Defense information technology investments.

   Section 1062--Restriction on Department of Defense Relocation of 
     Missions or Functions from Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station

    This section would prevent the future movement of any 
missions or functions related to Cheyenne Mountain Air Force 
Station until the Secretary of Defense has submitted a report 
and certified to Congress on the costs and benefits of any 
move. The report and certification shall include: a cost 
estimate; independent vulnerability and risk assessment; and 
the Secretary's implementation plan to address the 
vulnerabilities and risks identified in the assessment. The 
report and certification shall be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees 30 days prior to any movement 
of missions or functions.

            Section 1063--Technical and Clerical Amendments

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

Section 1064--Submission to Congress of Revision to Regulation on Enemy 
  Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other 
                               Detainees

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense 
submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services the updated, successor regulation 
to Army Regulation 190-8, Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained 
Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees (dated 
October 1, 1997) before the Department would be permitted to 
conduct activities pursuant to it.
    This section also clarifies that the existing Army 
Regulation 190-9 would not be impaired in any way by the 
notification procedure of this section.

     Section 1065--Authorization of Appropriations for Payments to 
       Portuguese Nationals Employed by the Department of Defense

    This section would authorize payments for salary increases 
based on wage survey data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Such 
Portuguese nationals employed by the Department of Defense for 
payments may only be paid if: (1) the wage survey methodology 
described in the United States--Portugal Agreement on 
Cooperation and Defense, signed at Lisbon on June 1, 1995, is 
eliminated; and (2) that agreement and any implementing 
regulations be revised to explicitly state that future 
increases in the pay of Portuguese nationals employed by the 
Department of Defense in Portuguese Republic are in compliance 
with United States law and regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary of Defense.

             Section 1066--State Defense Force Improvement

    The section would amend section 109 of title 32, United 
States Code, to recognize state defense forces as an integral 
military component of the United States, and would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to coordinate, assist, train, and 
transfer excess equipment to a state defense force provided the 
Secretary determines certain conditions are met. This section 
would also provide that funds available to the Department may 
not be made available to a state defense force.

      Section 1067--Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
undertake, at federal expense, appropriate measures as the 
Secretary determines to be necessary and in the public interest 
to address munitions placed on the beach during the 
construction of the Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet 
Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction project.

Section 1068--Sense of Congress Regarding the Roles and Mission of the 
     Department of Defense and Other National Security Institutions

    This section would express the sense of Congress that to 
ensure the future security of the United States, all of the 
national security organizations of the federal government must 
work together more effectively and that institutionalizing 
effective coordination within and among those organizations may 
require fundamental reform.

     Section 1069--Sense of Congress Relating to 2008 Supplemental 
                             Appropriations

    This section would express the sense of Congress that 
readiness shortfalls exist within the armed forces of the 
United States and that Congress has provided, and will continue 
to provide, funds to address such shortfalls.

 Section 1070--Sense of Congress Regarding Defense Requirements of the 
                             United States

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
defense requirements of the United States should be based on a 
comprehensive national security strategy and fully funded to 
counter present and emerging threats.

                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


Implementation of Existing Policies for Medical Care for Department of 
 Defense and Non-Department of Defense Civilians Injured or Wounded in 
                   Support of Contingency Operations

    The committee is concerned that Department of Defense (DOD) 
civilians who are injured or wounded while serving in support 
of a contingency operation may not be receiving adequate 
medical treatment or administrative support for such injuries. 
The committee is aware that the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
issued a memorandum, ``Policy Guidance for Provision of Medical 
Care to Department of Defense Civilian Employees Injured or 
Wounded While Forward Deployed in Support of Hostilities,'' on 
September 24, 2007. However, the committee is concerned that 
this policy may not be sufficient to address the full scope of 
medical care and treatment that may be required, and may not be 
communicated to such eligible employees and providers.
    In addition, the committee is concerned that non-DOD 
federal civilian personnel who become ill, injured, or wounded 
while serving in a combat zone in support of United States 
armed forces may be eligible for care with military medical 
facilities in theatre, but the conditions for such medical care 
eligibility are not well-defined, nor well-communicated to non-
DOD federal agencies and their employees.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to:
          (1) Review and establish a process to provide 
        oversight of the implementation of all existing 
        policies, directives, and instructions to ensure 
        comprehensive coverage to meet the medical requirements 
        of injured or wounded DOD federal civilians;
          (2) Establish a toll-free number to provide injured 
        and wounded DOD federal civilian personnel a one-stop 
        opportunity to obtain information and assistance; and
          (3) Define for non-DOD federal civilian personnel the 
        process and conditions for approving medical care for 
        non-DOD federal civilian personnel at military medical 
        facilities in theatre, and to distribute such 
        information to appropriate individuals within other 
        federal agencies for dissemination to their employees.
    The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the status of these actions to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2009.

               Information Technology Workforce Analysis

    The committee is concerned about the government's ability 
to compete with industrial and academic sectors to attract and 
retain the high-quality information technology workforce needed 
to support future networked military forces. In order to 
collect substantial data and develop a quantifiable analysis on 
this concern, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. This report 
shall include an analysis of the sufficiency of the Department 
of Defense (DOD) workforce. The analysis shall address the 
number of billets in the Department, available and filled, and 
an analysis of the knowledge, skills, and attributes required 
for these billets. The report shall also address the adequacy 
of the workforce supply pipeline, and include an examination of 
educational curricula and expected future needs for DOD 
software engineering programs at the university and post-
graduate level.

  Review of Medical Care for Federal Civilian Employees Serving in a 
                         Contingency Operation

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish 
a working group within the Department of Defense to examine the 
medical care for civilian employees serving in a contingency 
operation.
    The working group should be comprised at least of the 
following members:
          (1) A member from one of the services' medical 
        departments;
          (2) A member from the Office of the Under Secretary 
        of Defense for Personnel and Readiness;
          (3) A member from the Office of Personnel Management;
          (4) A member from the Office of Management and 
        Budget;
          (5) A member from the Department of State;
          (6) A member from the Defense Business Board;
          (7) A member from one of the federal employee 
        organizations;
          (8) A member from the Department of Labor;
          (9) A member from the Department of Justice;
          (10) A member from the United States Agency for 
        International Development; and
          (11) A member from the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs.
    The working group should be tasked with reviewing access to 
medical care for federal civilian employees serving in a 
contingency operation. The review should include consideration 
of whether federal civilian employees who are injured or 
wounded in a contingency operation are adequately supported and 
compensated by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) 
in chapter 81, title 5, United States Code; whether existing 
policies, directives, and instructions on medical coverage for 
injured or wounded civilians are adequate and fully 
communicated to employees and their supervisors; the 
development of a training regime to ensure awareness of agency 
policies and FECA procedures and requirements for employees and 
their supervisors; the need to provide mental health support to 
federal civilian employees in theatre and upon their return; 
whether recovery care coordinators should be established for 
injured or wounded federal civilians; and whether such 
individuals should have access to specialized treatments that 
are occurring within the military medical community. These 
reviews should include a recommendation on who is responsible 
for such care and treatment, and if the Department is 
determined to be able to provide the best course of action, 
then how the Department will be reimbursed for such services.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit 
the results of the working group's assessment to the 
congressional defense committees by March 31, 2009.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Section 1101--Temporary Authority to Waive Limitation on Premium Pay 
                         for Federal Employees

    This section would extend, for one additional year, the 
authority of the head of a federal agency to waive the 
limitations on the amount of premium pay that may be paid to a 
civilian employee who performs certain work in an overseas 
location that falls under the responsibility of the U.S. 
Central Command, or in support of a military operation or 
responding to an emergency declared by the President. The total 
compensation would be limited to $212,100 per calendar year.

    Section 1102--Extension of Authority to Make Lump-Sum Severance 
                                Payments

    This section would extend, from 2010 to 2014, existing 
authorities under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code, 
to allow the Department of Defense to pay, upon request, 
severance pay in one lump sum in lieu of bi-weekly payments to 
eligible employees being involuntarily separated. If an 
employee receiving a lump sum payment is reemployed by the 
federal government or the District of Columbia during the 
severance pay time period, the employee must pay back the 
portion of the payment that would not have been received under 
the bi-weekly option.

 Section 1103--Extension of Voluntary Reduction-in-Force Authority of 
                         Department of Defense

    This section would extend, from 2010 to 2014, existing 
authorities under section 3502 of title 5, United States Code, 
to allow an employee who is not affected by a reduction in 
force (RIF) to volunteer to be separated to protect another 
employee from being involuntarily separated by RIF procedures. 
The intent of this authority is to minimize the negative impact 
of downsizing within the Department of Defense.

    Section 1104--Technical Amendment to Definition of Professional 
                          Accounting Position

    This section would update the current statutory definition 
of professional accounting positions in section 1599d of title 
10, United States Code, to recognize the establishment of the 
National Security Personnel System, which does not utilize the 
General Schedule in defining positions.

 Section 1105--Expedited Hiring Authority for Health Care Professionals

    This section would amend section 1599c of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense with temporary 
expedited hiring authority for health care professionals. For 
purposes of sections 3304, 5333, and 5753 of title 5, United 
States Code, the Secretary would be allowed to designate health 
care positions as shortage category positions, and to recruit, 
appoint, and establish special pay criteria for qualified 
individuals in such positions. This section also would require 
the Department of Defense to utilize preferences for hiring 
veterans and other statutory categories of personnel. The 
committee recognizes the Department's immediate need for health 
care professionals to meet the medical needs of our military 
men and women. This section would expire in 2012.

Section 1106--Authority to Adjust Certain Limitations on Personnel and 
                      Reports on Such Adjustments

    This section would permit the Department of Defense and the 
military services to exceed the limitation on personnel by no 
more than five percent each year above the baseline, if it is 
determined to be necessary to eliminate a contract being 
performed for an inherently governmental function, or a 
contract that is being performed that is closely associated 
with an inherently governmental function, such as a lead 
systems integrator function which was prohibited in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181). The baseline personnel limitation for fiscal year 
2009 is the current statutory limitation. This section would 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a new baseline 
each year based on the lesser of the previous year's five 
percent increase, or the actual personnel increase. This 
section also would require the Secretary of Defense to submit 
an annual report accompanying the budget request documenting 
the use of this authority. Finally, this section would require 
the Comptroller General to conduct an evaluation of the 
Department's use of this authority and report to the 
congressional defense committees on the Comptroller's findings 
by April 15, 2009.

 Section 1107--Temporary Discretionary Authority to Grant Allowances, 
Benefits, and Gratuities to Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone

    This section would provide temporary discretionary 
authority to federal agencies to grant allowances, benefits, 
and gratuities--comparable to those provided to members of the 
foreign service--to an agency's civilian employees on official 
duty in a combat zone. This authority would expire in 2011.

 Section 1108--Requirement Relating to Furloughs During the Time of a 
                         Contingency Operation

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, before 
issuing any furlough notices to civilian employees of the 
Department of Defense on the basis of a lack of funds during 
contingency operations, to certify to the congressional defense 
committees that he has no other legal measures to avoid such 
furloughs. The committee believes the certification should 
include a description of the measures the Secretary of Defense 
has taken to avoid such furloughs, as well as measures taken to 
obtain the required funding.

Section 1109--Direct Hire Authority for Certain Positions at Personnel 
                       Demonstration Laboratories

    This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with 
temporary direct hire authority for scientific and engineering 
positions within certain defense laboratories. For purposes of 
sections 3304, 5333, and 5753 of title 5, United States Code, 
the Secretary would be allowed to designate scientific and 
engineering positions as shortage category positions, and to 
recruit, appoint, and establish special pay criteria for 
qualified individuals in such positions. This section also 
would limit the authority, in any calendar year, to no more 
than two percent of the total number of positions within the 
laboratory. This section would expire in 2013.

             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                 Combatant Commanders' Initiative Fund

    The committee welcomes the Department of Defense's added 
emphasis on using the Combatant Commanders' Initiative Fund 
(CCIF), as established in section 166a of title 10, United 
States Code, and modified by the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), as 
a valuable tool for combatant commanders to tailor programs and 
initiatives for their respective areas of responsibility. The 
committee also notes the Department's plans to increase the use 
of this authority, as amended, so that combatant commanders can 
better provide urgent and unanticipated humanitarian relief and 
reconstruction assistance to countries, particularly where U.S. 
armed forces are engaged in contingency operations.
    Because the use of this modified authority is a relatively 
recent development, the committee expects that the Department 
will update its guidelines for use of the CCIF, especially as 
it relates to humanitarian relief and reconstruction 
activities, to ensure that the authority can be used quickly 
and without bureaucratic delay in urgent situations. As noted 
in the conference report accompanying the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the committee underscores that CCIF authority, 
particularly as it relates to humanitarian relief and 
reconstruction activities, is not intended for use in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or the Republic of Iraq so long 
as the Commanders' Emergency Response Program or other similar 
authority is available for use in those countries.
    Finally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit an annual report on the exercise of CCIF authority for 
fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Each report shall be due to 
the congressional defense committees within 90 days after the 
end of the respective fiscal year and shall, at a minimum, 
identify each foreign nation that received assistance under 
CCIF authority for that fiscal year, the amount of that 
assistance, and the national security rationale for providing 
that assistance.

             Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Iraq

    The committee notes with significant concern the increasing 
requests for funding for the Commanders' Emergency Response 
Program (CERP) in the Republic of Iraq at a time when the 
Government of Iraq is experiencing unanticipated increases in 
national revenue, has a growing institutional capability to 
undertake its own humanitarian and reconstruction projects, and 
has itself contributed its own national funds to projects 
administered under CERP authority. Moreover, the committee 
notes that the increasing requests do not reflect comparable 
growth of CERP projects to address similar needs in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan theater of operations. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends a provision elsewhere in this title to 
limit the expenditure of U.S. CERP funds in fiscal year 2009 to 
no more than twice the amount obligated by the Government of 
Iraq for its CERP account in calendar year 2008.
    The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, detailing: how 
the Department of Defense formulated base budget and 
supplemental budget requests for the CERP program to date and 
how the Department takes into account the increasing receipts 
of the Government of Iraq; the increasing capability of the 
Government of Iraq in undertaking humanitarian and 
reconstruction projects to benefit the Iraqi people; 
contributions from the Government of Iraq; and the needs in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan when formulating CERP requests.

                           Foreign Disclosure

    The committee notes that the protection of classified 
information is one of the paramount responsibilities of the 
Department of Defense. Military officers, civilians employed by 
the Department of Defense, and in some cases contractor 
personnel, interact with foreign personnel of allied militaries 
and coalition partners in environments where the protection of 
classified information is challenging, and where the proper 
sharing of information is essential to the mission. The 
committee encourages the Department to provide training to all 
such personnel on the rules regarding foreign disclosure of 
sensitive information. Such training is especially important 
for members of the reserve component called to duty in 
positions requiring the handling of sensitive information and 
foreign disclosure.

                         Foreign Military Sales

    The committee notes that the training and equipping of 
foreign security forces is an increasingly important element of 
U.S. national security policy and is an area with growing 
involvement by the Department of Defense. Foreign military 
sales (FMS) can be a highly beneficial and effective part of 
this effort. For example, in recent years, the Government of 
Iraq has increasingly utilized the FMS process to acquire and 
sustain U.S.-origin military equipment because the FMS process 
provides high-quality equipment while minimizing concerns about 
procurement integrity that otherwise have inhibited the 
Republic of Iraq's efforts to make major investments in 
equipment. As the United States focuses increasingly on 
building partnership capacity around the world, it is often 
doing so with countries that are not traditional FMS customers. 
These countries have underdeveloped institutional capacities, 
particularly in matters of budgeting and acquisition, which 
present challenges for an FMS sales system that has 
traditionally focused on sales to longer-term, more developed 
allies.
    These trends have correctly led to a reexamination of the 
policies and processes associated with FMS, including the 
appointment of a dedicated FMS task force by the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense. The committee is pleased to note that the 
efforts of this task force led to a significant reduction in 
the time needed to process high-priority FMS requests. The 
committee expects that the Department will continue to examine 
the policies and processes associated with FMS to ensure that 
they are appropriately tailored to the changing environment for 
this program.
    At the same time, the committee notes that processes other 
than FMS that have been and are still being used to equip 
foreign security forces, particularly the special funds for 
Iraqi and Afghan security forces, have proven extremely 
vulnerable to materiel diversion, corruption, and 
accountability failures. These failures can not only limit the 
effectiveness of U.S. assistance, in extreme cases, they can 
and have led to outcomes that work at cross purposes to U.S. 
policy and the military mission. The FMS program is a better 
long-term alternative to these more ad hoc programs, which have 
limited institutional support and under-developed 
accountability processes.
    The FMS program suffers from its own accountability issues 
as highlighted in reports issued by the Government 
Accountability Office and by the recent discovery of the 
accidental delivery of classified parts to the Republic of 
China on Taiwan. The Government Accountability Office 
identified numerous cases of shipments leaving U.S. ports in 
which the defense articles were not authorized by the FMS 
agreement, the FMS agreement was closed, or the value of the 
articles exceeded the amount authorized. The Government 
Accountability Office also found that there is no effective 
system for tracking shipments after they have left a U.S. port, 
which increases opportunities for diversion, improper delivery, 
or theft. The committee expects the Department to work and 
share information with other federal agencies to correct 
problems with tracking FMS shipments at U.S. ports and during 
transport to the country of destination.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, working in 
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report, 
by September 1, 2008, 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 containing an analysis of the implications of 
the Department's efforts to build partner capacity around the 
globe for the FMS program, measures needed to address problems 
with the tracking of FMS shipments, and efforts within the 
Department to update its policies and processes for handling 
FMS.

    Graduates of the Jordanian International Police Training Center

    The committee has previously noted its concern about the 
ability to track the status of those Iraqi Police Forces who 
have been trained and equipped by coalition forces. In 
particular, the committee is concerned about the status of past 
graduates of the Jordanian International Police Training Center 
(JIPTC). The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act to the congressional defense committees on the current 
status of all Iraqi graduates of the JIPTC, including the 
number who are still part of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), 
the number who are no longer part of the ISF, and the number, 
if any, who have been detained by coalition or Iraqi 
authorities.

 Honoring and Acknowledging Service Members Redeploying from Operation 
              Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom

    The committee believes that the service, contributions and 
sacrifices made by the men and women of the armed forces in 
support of their missions in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) 
and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) have resulted in many 
significant accomplishments that will provide lasting benefits, 
and that their accomplishments should be honored not only by 
the people of Iraq and Afghanistan but by all Americans. The 
committee believes that the service, sacrifice, and 
accomplishments of these service members should be honored and 
acknowledged by their leaders prior to their redeploying from 
OIF and OEF. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to transmit guidance throughout the Department, in a 
manner and form the Secretary deems appropriate, to implement 
the issuance of statements to service members honoring and 
acknowledging their service prior to their redeployment from 
theater.

   Integrating Inter-agency Capabilities into Department of Defense 
                   Planning for Stability Operations

    The committee commends the ``Report to Congress on the 
Implementation of DOD Directive 3000.05 Military Support for 
Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) 
Operations'' required by section 1035 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364). The report served as a useful, informative guide 
to the evolution of SSTR-related policies at the Department of 
Defense (DOD). The report recognizes the essential contribution 
that civilian agencies must make to successful stability 
operations. The committee also commends the military services' 
ongoing efforts in this area, particularly Army Field Manual 3-
0, which acknowledges and incorporates the role of civilian 
expertise. The committee shares the Department's view that this 
is an area that deserves substantial attention and one where 
policies will continue to evolve.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act a report containing an update on the 
further implementation of DOD Directive 3000.05, including:
          (1) Efforts to identify and prioritize needed SSTR 
        capabilities, both military and civilian, during every 
        phase of an operation;
          (2) The development of measures of effectiveness to 
        evaluate progress in achieving these capabilities;
          (3) Steps taken to integrate civilian personnel and 
        capabilities more fully into military planning and 
        scenario development;
          (4) Efforts to update DOD planning guidance to 
        require that the SSTR planning review process includes 
        validation that lessons learned, especially lessons 
        learned from the establishment and operation of 
        Provincial Reconstruction Teams in the Republic of Iraq 
        and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, have been 
        considered and adopted as appropriate; and
          (5) Continuing challenges or obstacles to integrated 
        inter-agency support for SSTR operations, and potential 
        solutions for mitigating them, including methods for 
        achieving greater inter-agency participation in the 
        development of military plans.

          Oversight of Department of Defense Policies on Iran

    The committee remains seriously concerned about certain 
activities undertaken by the government of the Islamic Republic 
of Iran and believes that many of Iran's policies and actions 
threaten the internal security of its neighbors and the 
collective stability of the Middle East region. The committee 
notes that it has held briefings and hearings throughout the 
last year on a range of security issues involving Iran, 
including:
          (1) Coalition measures to stop Iranian support for 
        insurgents and militias in the Republic of Iraq;
          (2) Efforts under the Gulf Security Dialogue to help 
        build stability and security in the Middle East region;
          (3) The activities of Iranian Navy's patrol craft in 
        close proximity to U.S. military ships in the Strait of 
        Hormuz;
          (4) Iranian conventional military capabilities: and
          (5) Iranian nuclear intentions and capabilities as 
        assessed in the November 2007 National Intelligence 
        Estimate.
    The committee appreciates the information that has been 
provided by the Department of Defense, the Department of State, 
and other federal agencies on Iran. The committee encourages 
the Department of Defense and other agencies to remain actively 
engaged with the committee on security matters involving Iran, 
and to keep the committee fully informed on these matters.

         Reconstruction, Security, and Stabilization Assistance

    The committee believes that the authority provided in 
section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Action for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), provides the Department 
of State with critical resources to engage in reconstruction, 
security, or stabilization activities. The committee reaffirms 
that the resources provided under this authority are intended 
to meet immediate, short-term needs. They are not intended for 
long-term development programs, even when other funding 
authorities that currently exist are not sufficient or 
appropriate. Nor is this authority intended to be used for 
broader security assistance initiatives that would be better 
suited for traditional foreign military financing authorities; 
as stated in the conference report accompanying Public Law 109-
163, Congress does not believe it is appropriate to provide 
long-term funding from the Department of Defense to the 
Department of State so that the Department of State can fulfill 
its statutory requirements. Finally, this authority should not 
be used for broader security assistance programs undertaken 
under the type of authority provided under section 1206 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163), as amended by section 1206 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364).

 Report on Command and Control Structure for Military Forces Operating 
                        in the Republic of Korea

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, by December 
1, 2008, to submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report on the command and control structure for military forces 
operating in the Republic of Korea (ROK), which include ROK, 
U.S., and other international forces, following the U.S. 
transfer of wartime operational control of ROK forces to the 
ROK by 2012. The report shall address the command and control 
structure for such forces in both peacetime and wartime and 
include a detailed explanation of how such command and control 
structure achieves unity of command and U.S. security 
objectives on the Korean peninsula.

   Report on Efforts to Train and Equip the Afghan National Security 
                                 Forces

    The committee notes that in recent committee hearings and 
briefings, senior Department of Defense officials have 
emphasized that training and equipping the Afghan National Army 
and Afghan National Police of the Afghan National Security 
Forces (ANSF) is a cornerstone of the U.S. strategy in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and a key to success there. The 
committee is seriously concerned that efforts to train and 
equip the ANSF continue to be hampered by a chronic shortage of 
qualified trainers and mentors for the ANSF, and that the ANSF 
continues to be plagued by corruption, absenteeism, and other 
problems. The committee urges the Department of Defense to 
strengthen its efforts to address these problems, and to build 
and sustain a strong and fully capable ANSF that will be able 
to independently and effectively conduct operations and 
maintain long-term security and stability in Afghanistan.
    The committee notes that it receives a monthly report from 
the U.S. Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan 
(CSTCA-A) on the ANSF, which includes the shortfall of U.S. 
trainers and mentors for the ANSF. However, the committee notes 
that the report does not include the shortfall of all personnel 
required to train, mentor and support the ANSF, which has been 
the subject of public statements and testimony before the 
committee by the Secretary of Defense. The committee therefore 
directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the monthly 
report, beginning on the first month following the date of the 
enactment of this Act, contains the shortfall of all personnel 
required to train, mentor, and support the ANSF. The report 
shall clearly set forth the shortfall of all U.S. personnel, 
including U.S. personnel that are part of North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams 
(OMLTs) for the Afghan National Army. The report shall also 
describe the mechanism employed to identify U.S. requirements 
for ANSF trainers and mentors, and include any commitments from 
NATO countries for OMLTs. The report shall be submitted in 
unclassified form but may include a classified annex if 
necessary.
    The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense, by 
December 1, 2008, to submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report on any ongoing and planned actions of the 
Department of Defense to: address the shortfall of U.S. 
trainers and mentors for the ANSF; encourage NATO countries to 
fulfill the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force 
(ISAF) Combined Joint Statement of Requirements (CJSOR) 
shortfalls for OMLTs; and increase contributions from NATO 
countries and other international partners for building and 
sustaining the ANSF.

 Review of Provincial Reconstruction Team Personnel and Training, and 
Department of Defense Measures to Support the Development of a Corps of 
     Civilian and Military Personnel for Future Stabilization and 
                       Reconstruction Operations

    The committee notes that military and civilian personnel 
have performed admirably in filling positions on Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq. However, the committee is 
concerned that current civilian and military personnel systems 
may not be adequate to identify and select personnel to serve 
on PRTs, recognize and reward the service of those who have 
volunteered for PRT assignments, or attract qualified personnel 
with the skills and experience needed to perform successfully 
on PRTs in the future. Further, the committee notes that the 
pre-deployment training for military and civilian personnel 
serving in PRTs in Afghanistan and Iraq has developed in an ad 
hoc manner and varies greatly depending on the theater in which 
the personnel will serve. For example, it appears certain PRT 
personnel had no pre-deployment PRT mission-specific training 
requirement.
    The committee believes that the United States likely will 
be called upon again to provide the sustained effort necessary 
to stabilize and rebuild a nation and that such effort is 
likely to require a corps of military and civilian personnel 
with unique skills and expertise. The committee believes that 
this likelihood mandates that the Department of Defense 
carefully review the selection, training, and performance of 
PRT personnel, and begin to consider how to establish and 
maintain a corps of future commanders, leaders, and other 
personnel for organizations designed to perform stability and 
reconstruction missions.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to undertake such a review and submit a report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services within six months after the date of enactment of this 
Act. At a minimum, the report shall include the following:
          (1) In the case of military officers and enlisted 
        personnel who served on a PRT, a listing of the types 
        of personnel selected for service as part of a PRT, 
        including information regarding skill sets and 
        experience levels compared to the skill sets and 
        experience levels required by the PRTs; whether the 
        military or civilian skills of reserve component 
        members on PRTs were used to meet PRT requirements and 
        how civilian skills of reservists' were assessed in the 
        selection process; the number and type of decorations 
        and awards received by PRT personnel relative to their 
        peers; promotion, command, or leadership selection for 
        military personnel who served on a PRT relative to 
        their peers; and if credit for serving in a joint or 
        inter-agency billet was provided to personnel who 
        served as part of a PRT.
          (2) In the case of Department of Defense civilian 
        personnel who served on a PRT, a listing of the types 
        of personnel selected including information regarding 
        skill and experience levels compared to the skill sets 
        and experience levels required by the PRTs; the number 
        and type of awards received by personnel who served on 
        a PRT relative to their peers; and advanced training, 
        education, and promotion opportunities that were 
        provided following assignment to PRTs, relative to 
        their peers.
          (3) A description of Department of Defense plans to 
        work with the Department of State and other federal 
        departments and agencies, as appropriate, to integrate 
        and standardize training for personnel assigned to PRTs 
        in the future, including measures to ensure that both 
        Department of Defense and non-Department of Defense PRT 
        personnel can train together as early in the pre-
        deployment schedule as possible; measures to ensure 
        that all PRT personnel receive pre-deployment PRT 
        mission-specific training, as appropriate; measures to 
        ensure that in the future PRT personnel would be able 
        to train with the maneuver units with which they would 
        work, where such is appropriate and practicable; 
        measures to standardize training on force protection 
        and combat life saving skills; measures to ensure the 
        cross-utilization of training facilities for all 
        personnel, including courses offered by the Foreign 
        Service Institute, if appropriate; and measures to 
        ensure that the cost of training personnel and 
        providing personnel to conduct training are shared with 
        other agencies, as required.
          (4) A discussion of the Department of Defense 
        consideration of measures to develop a corps of 
        civilian and military personnel for stabilization and 
        reconstruction operations in the future, including 
        potential requirements to develop specific security, 
        stability, transition, and reconstruction (SSTR) 
        operations career tracks for officers, enlisted 
        personnel, and civilian personnel, as well as special 
        skills identifiers or experience identifiers for these 
        assignments; coordination with the Secretary of State 
        to augment exchange programs between the Department of 
        State, the United States Agency for International 
        Development, and the Department of Defense, 
        particularly the unified combatant commands; and 
        requirements to provide for the professional education 
        and training of military and civilian personnel and to 
        coordinate the development of inter-agency stability 
        and reconstruction curriculum for use in programs at 
        appropriate educational institutions of the Department 
        of Defense and other agencies.

   Security Developments in Pakistan and Implications for Afghanistan

    The committee is seriously concerned about instability in 
Pakistan, which has steeply increased since mid-2007, and the 
implications for U.S. national security and security in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the region. The committee 
notes that it has held hearings and briefings throughout the 
last year on a range of security issues involving Pakistan, 
including:
          (1) The security and stability situation in 
        Pakistan's border areas, and any implications for 
        Afghanistan;
          (2) The security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, 
        including the command and control structure;
          (3) U.S. strategy and policy involving Pakistan, in 
        light of Pakistan's recent presidential and 
        parliamentary elections;
          (4) Information regarding reported U.S. military 
        involvement in Pakistan, including the status of any 
        conversations with the Pakistani Government, and any 
        Department of Defense plans;
          (5) The U.S. Security Development Plan in Pakistan, 
        including efforts to train and equip the Pakistani 
        Frontier Corp and establish Border Coordination 
        Centers; and
          (6) Department of Defense Coalition Support Fund 
        reimbursements to Pakistan and the status of efforts 
        relating to section 1232 of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
        181), which includes a requirement for itemized 
        descriptions of such reimbursements to Pakistan.
    The committee appreciates the information that has been 
provided by the Department of Defense and the interagency on 
Pakistan. The committee encourages the Department of Defense 
and the interagency to remain actively engaged on security 
matters involving Pakistan, and to keep the committee fully 
informed of any significant developments.

          Security for Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq

    The committee is concerned about Department of Defense 
plans to provide security for Provincial Reconstruction Teams 
(PRTs) and Provincial Support Teams (PSTs) in certain provinces 
of the Republic of Iraq after the primary responsibility for 
security in those provinces is transferred to the Iraqi 
Government through the Provincial Iraqi Control (PIC) process. 
The committee also notes that such planning may be further 
complicated by the expiration of United Nations Security 
Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1790. Because PRTs and PSTs provide 
key services, support, and mentoring to the communities in 
which they operate, their continued presence is integral to the 
U.S. strategy to improve the delivery of services and the 
capacity of the Government of Iraq. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
Secretary of State, to submit a report 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 within 90 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act on how security will be provided for PRTs and PSTs 
as provinces transition under the PIC process and under any 
legal structure that replaces or supersedes UNSCR 1790.

               Special Inspector General for Afghanistan

    The committee is seriously concerned that the President has 
not yet appointed a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction (SIGAR), pursuant to section 1229 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), which required such appointment within 30 days 
after the date of enactment of Public Law 110-181. The 
committee emphasizes that appointment of the SIGAR is critical, 
given the need for independent and objective audits of U.S. 
Government programs and operations for Afghanistan 
reconstruction. The committee expects the President to appoint 
the SIGAR at the earliest possible time.

          Unity of Command in Provincial Reconstruction Teams

    The committee notes that Provincial Reconstruction Teams 
(PRTs) operate under complicated, and at times, unclear chains 
of command and receive direction from multiple sources. The 
lack of ``unity of command'' at every level (tactical, 
operational, and strategic) has at times resulted in 
uncoordinated, and perhaps even counterproductive, outcomes.
    The committee further notes that ``unity of command'' is a 
time-tested principle of military leadership and management 
that marries accountability with responsibility and provides 
personnel in the field a clear source of guidance and 
direction. This principle has corollaries in other activities, 
both in government and in industry, such as the principle of 
``line management'' which denotes clear lines of authority and 
direction. The committee strongly recommends that the 
Department of Defense and the Department of State seek to unify 
leadership and command within the PRT effort to clarify 
accountability and authority in the field and that the 
President consider whether there is adequate guidance in terms 
of roles, missions, and leadership responsibilities for United 
States Government personnel in other zones of conflict.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training


   Section 1201--Extension of Authority to Build the Capacity of the 
                        Pakistan Frontier Corps

    This section would amend section 1206 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), by extending the authority through fiscal year 2010.

 Section 1202--Military-to-Military Contacts and Comparable Activities

    This section would amend section 168(e) of title 10, United 
States Code, so that funds provided under that section in any 
fiscal year may be used for programs that begin in that fiscal 
year, but end in the next fiscal year, beginning with fiscal 
year 2009.

   Section 1203--Enhanced Authority to Pay Incremental Expenses for 
      Participation of Developing Countries in Combined Exercises

    This section would amend section 2010 of title 10, United 
States Code, so that funds authorized under that section in any 
fiscal year are available for programs that begin in that 
fiscal year, but end in the following fiscal year, starting in 
fiscal year 2009.

 Section 1204--Extension of Temporary Authority to Use Acquisition and 
  Cross-servicing Agreements to Lend Military Equipment for Personnel 
                      Protection and Survivability

    This section would extend the authority first granted by 
section 1202 in the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), and amended by 
section 1254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), from September 30, 2009, 
to September 30, 2010. This section would add two additional 
elements to the existing reporting requirement regarding the 
type and disposition of equipment lent to foreign nations under 
this authority but not returned to the United States.

   Section 1205--One-Year Extension of Authority for Distribution to 
   Certain Foreign Personnel of Education and Training Materials and 
      Information Technology to Enhance Military Interoperability

    This section would amend section 1207 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364), to extend the authority provided in that section 
through fiscal year 2009. This section would also prohibit the 
Secretary of Defense from providing any type assistance under 
this authority that is otherwise prohibited by law and from 
providing any type of assistance to any foreign country that is 
otherwise prohibited from receiving such type of assistance 
under any other provision of law.

  Section 1206--Modification and Extension of Authorities Relating to 
        Program to Build the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces

    This section would amend section 1206 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), to provide authority to use funds provided in a fiscal 
year for programs begun in that fiscal year, but continued into 
the next fiscal year, beginning with fiscal year 2009. It would 
extend the authority provided in section 1206 for an additional 
two years, through fiscal year 2010.
    The committee is disappointed to learn that, in the case of 
assistance provided to the Republic of Panama, the Department 
of Defense pushed beyond the clearly articulated limits of this 
authority and is concerned about the responsible execution of 
this authority in the future. The committee continues to 
believe that capable foreign partners play a vital role in the 
international security environment but remain unconvinced that 
this authority should reside permanently with the Department of 
Defense. The committee expects that, over the long-term, these 
``train and equip''-type authorities, which appear to be 
migrating to the Department of Defense, might better remain 
within the Department of State's jurisdiction.
    The committee believes military-to-military programs are 
beneficial in fostering a deeper sense of partnership and 
commitment between the United States, our allies, and friends 
and therefore encourages the Department of Defense to use 
members of the United States military to conduct the training 
provided under this authority whenever possible.

  Section 1207--Extension of Authority for Security and Stabilization 
                               Assistance

    This section would amend section 1207 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), by extending the authority from September 30, 2008, to 
September 30, 2010.

  Section 1208--Authority for Support of Special Operations to Combat 
                               Terrorism

    This section would strike section 1208 of the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
(Public Law 108-375), and amend chapter 3 of title 10, United 
States Code, to create permanent authority to provide 
assistance to foreign irregular forces, groups or individuals 
supporting special operations forces. This section would also 
authorize an increase from $25.0 million to $35.0 million the 
annual amount of assistance for activities allowed under this 
section.
    This section would affirm committee support for current and 
previous activities conducted pursuant to section 1208, as 
noted above. The committee applauds the achievements resulting 
from this program.
    The committee notes that the activities authorized by this 
section are not intended to be used for broader security 
assistance activities or other traditional foreign military 
financing authorities, such as those provided under section 
1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 (Public Law 109-163), and as amended.

 Section 1209--Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program

    This section would amend section 2249c of title 10, United 
States Code, to increase the authorized annual funding level 
for the Program from $25.0 million to $35.0 million.

          Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Iraq and Afghanistan


Section 1211--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain Purposes 
                            Relating to Iraq

    This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized by 
this Act or any other act to establish permanent U.S. military 
installations or bases in the Republic of Iraq or to exercise 
U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. The section would 
also provide a definition of the term permanent.

Section 1212--Report on Status of Forces Agreements between the United 
                            States and Iraq

    This section would require the President to submit a report 
to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, and the House Committee on Armed Services within 90 
days after the date of enactment of this Act on each agreement 
between the United States and the Republic of Iraq relating to: 
the legal status of U.S. military personnel, Department of 
Defense civilian personnel, and Department of Defense 
contractor personnel; the establishment of or access to 
military bases; the rules of engagement under which the U.S. 
armed forces would operate in Iraq; or any security commitment, 
arrangement, or assurance that obligates the United States to 
respond to internal or external threats against Iraq. This 
section describes the elements of the report. This section 
would require that if no agreement in these areas has been 
completed within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the President shall notify the specified congressional 
committees that no agreement or agreements have been completed 
and shall submit the required report as soon as practicable 
after the completion of the agreement or agreements.

Section 1213--Strategy for United States-Led Provincial Reconstruction 
                             Teams in Iraq

    This section would require that the President establish a 
strategy to ensure that U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction 
Teams, Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and Provincial 
Support Teams are supporting the strategic goals of the 
coalition and establish measures of effectiveness and 
performance in meeting work plans. This section would also 
require the President to submit a report 60 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act and every 90 days thereafter to the 
congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 
on the implementation of the strategy and monitoring system.

          Section 1214--Commanders' Emergency Response Program

    This section would amend section 1202 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163), as amended by section 1205 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), to 
modify the authorized level of funding for the activities of 
the Commanders' Emergency Response Program. This section would 
authorize $1.7 billion for the activities of this program in 
fiscal year 2008, and $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2009. This 
section would also impose a new limitation on the amounts that 
could be obligated and expended through the Commanders' 
Emergency Response Program in the Republic of Iraq during 
fiscal year 2009 of twice the amount obligated during calendar 
year 2008 by the Government of Iraq through the Government of 
Iraq Commanders' Emergency Response Program (I-CERP). The 
section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive this 
limitation if the Secretary determined that the waiver was 
required to meet urgent and compelling needs that if unmet, 
could rationally be expected to lead to increased threats to 
United States military and civilian personnel and notified the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services of the waiver. The notification of the waiver 
would also require a discussion of the reasons the waiver was 
required, efforts undertaken to convince the Government of Iraq 
to provide funds to meet the unmet needs and why those efforts 
were unsuccessful, and efforts of the Department of Defense to 
convince the Government of Iraq to meet such needs in the 
future.

   Section 1215--Performance Monitoring System for United States-led 
             Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan

    This section would require the President, acting through 
the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, to develop and 
implement a performance monitoring system for the U.S.-led 
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan. The performance monitoring system would 
include: PRT-specific work plans; comprehensive performance 
indicators and measures of progress toward sustainable long-
term security and stability in Afghanistan; performance 
standards; and progress goals with a notional timetable for 
achieving such goals. The requirements for the performance 
monitoring system would be consistent with the requirements of 
section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
    This section would further require the President to submit 
to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee 
on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, a report on the implementation of the performance 
monitoring system.

  Section 1216--Report on Command and Control Structure for Military 
                    Forces Operating in Afghanistan

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
command structure for military forces operating in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, which consists of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) International Security Assistance 
(ISAF) forces and separate U.S. forces operating under 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), should be modified to better 
coordinate and de-conflict military operations and achieve 
unity of command whenever possible in Afghanistan.
    This section would further require the Secretary of 
Defense, by December 1, 2008, to submit to the congressional 
defense committees, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 
and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs a report on the 
command and control structure for military forces operating in 
Afghanistan. The report would include the following:
          (1) A detailed description of efforts by the 
        Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the senior 
        leaders of NATO ISAF forces, to modify the chain of 
        command structure for military forces operating in 
        Afghanistan to better coordinate and de-conflict 
        military operations and achieve unity of command 
        whenever possible, and the results of such efforts;
          (2) A comprehensive assessment of options for 
        improving the command and control structure for 
        military forces operating in Afghanistan, including the 
        establishment of a three-star U.S. headquarters in 
        Kabul, Afghanistan to lead the U.S. forces operating 
        under OEF; to lead country-wide Department of Defense-
        led initiatives; and to closely coordinate efforts with 
        NATO ISAF, the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan, and other 
        U.S. and international elements in Afghanistan;
          (3) A detailed description of any U.S. or NATO ISAF 
        plan or strategy for improving the command and control 
        structure for military forces operating in Afghanistan;
          (4) A description of how rules of engagement are 
        determined and managed for U.S. forces operating under 
        NATO ISAF or OEF, and a description of any key 
        differences between rules of engagement for NATO ISAF 
        forces and separate U.S. forces operating under OEF; 
        and
          (5) An assessment of how possible modifications to 
        the command and control structure for military forces 
        operating in Afghanistan would impact coordination of 
        military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan.
    The committee believes that the restrictive national 
caveats of NATO ISAF forces, which limit operations in 
Afghanistan, are a significant obstacle to improving the 
command and control structure in Afghanistan. In the committee 
report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the committee expressed 
strong concern about such national caveats and has not observed 
significant improvements since that time. The committee 
emphasizes that the United States must significantly strengthen 
its efforts to effectively address NATO ISAF national caveats 
and rules of engagement with NATO ISAF countries.

Section 1217--Report on Enhancing Security and Stability in the Region 
              along the Border of Afghanistan and Pakistan

    This section would amend section 1232(b) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), by adding the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee to the congressional 
notification requirement under section 1232(b) relating to 
Department of Defense Coalition Support Funds (CSF) for the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

     Section 1218--Study and Report on Iraqi Police Training Teams

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Government 
of Iraq, submit a report concerning the staffing and funding 
for Police Training Teams in Iraq. This section would require 
that the report be submitted within 60 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act 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.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


     Section 1221--Payment of Personnel Expenses for Multilateral 
                          Cooperation Programs

    This section would amend section 1051(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to pay 
the travel, subsistence, and similar personal expenses of 
defense personnel of developing countries in connection with 
the attendance of such personnel at multilateral conferences, 
seminars, and other similar meetings that are in the national 
security interests of the United States.
    This section also would amend section 1051(b) of title 10, 
United States Code, to provide new authority for the Secretary 
of Defense to pay the travel, subsistence, and similar personal 
expenses of defense personnel of developing countries only in 
connection with travel to, from, and within the area of 
responsibility of the combatant commander in which the 
multilateral conference, seminar, or similar meeting is 
located. Lastly, this section would make available funds 
authorized under that section in any fiscal year for programs 
that begin in that fiscal year, but end in the following fiscal 
year, beginning with fiscal year 2009.

     Section 1222--Extension of Department of Defense Authority to 
      Participate in Multinational Military Centers of Excellence

    This section would extend the authority first granted by 
section 1205 in the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) and amended by 
section 1204 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) through fiscal year 2009.

Section 1223--Study of Limitation on Classified Contracts with Foreign 
             Companies Engaged in Space Business with China

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
study the implications of prohibiting the Department of Defense 
from obligating or expending funds in fiscal year 2009, or any 
subsequent fiscal year, on contracts for classified work with a 
foreign-owned company that is engaged with the People's 
Republic of China in the development, manufacture, or launch of 
certain satellites. The prohibition would apply to companies 
engaged in work involving satellites which are not covered by 
the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). This 
section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the 
prohibition on the use of funds if doing so is necessary to 
protect national security.
    This section would require that the Secretary's study be 
completed within 60 days of the date of enactment of this Act. 
This section would further authorize and require the Secretary 
to apply the prohibition on funding if the Secretary determines 
after performing the study that doing so promotes the national 
interest. This section would also require the Secretary to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services on the results of the 
study and the Secretary's determination.

    Section 1224--Sense of Congress and Congressional Briefings on 
      Readiness of the Armed Forces and Report on Nuclear Weapons 
                          Capabilities of Iran

    This section expresses the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense should return the armed forces to a state 
of full readiness so that they are fully prepared to execute 
the National Military Strategy. It would require the Secretary 
of Defense to provide semiannual briefings to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services on matters pertaining to the preparation for the full 
range of contingencies that could occur in the Middle East 
region. The provision would also require the Secretary to 
submit a detailed annual report addressing the current and 
future nuclear weapons capabilities of the Islamic Republic of 
Iran and provide a notification to Congress when Iran has 
produced enough enriched uranium or plutonium for a nuclear 
weapon.

  TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER 
                              SOVIET UNION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
(CTR) Program contained $414.1 million for fiscal year 2009, 
representing a decrease of $13.9 million from the amount 
authorized in fiscal year 2008, excluding any supplemental 
funds. This request contained the following decreases: $12.9 
million for strategic offensive arms elimination in the Russian 
Federation; $23.5 million for nuclear weapons storage security 
in Russia; $6.0 million for chemical weapons destruction; and 
$10.0 million for new CTR initiatives. The request also 
contained the following increases: $6.4 million for strategic 
nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine; $3.1 million for nuclear 
weapons transportation security in Russia; $26.0 million for 
biological threat reduction in states of the former Soviet 
Union (FSU); $2.3 million for weapons of mass destruction 
proliferation prevention in the FSU; and $0.8 million for other 
assessments and administrative costs.
    The committee fully supports the goals of the CTR Program 
and continues to believe the Program is critical to U.S. 
national security and must be a top priority. In the committee 
report (H. Rept. 110-146) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the committee expressed 
concern that a lack of effective policy guidance and 
leadership, as well as programmatic and funding constraints, 
have limited the progress of the CTR Program in recent years. 
The committee further noted that although the CTR Program has 
made significant progress over the last 10 years, much remains 
to be done, and emphasized that there must be a strong national 
commitment to reinvigorate the CTR Program.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) addressed these concerns by: repealing 
limitations on the use of CTR funds; expanding CTR authority 
outside the FSU; and increasing CTR funding by $80.0 million 
above the budget request for fiscal year 2008, including $10.0 
million for new CTR initiatives. Public Law 110-181 also 
required: reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the 
Secretary of Defense on the development of new CTR initiatives; 
a report by the Secretary of Defense regarding efforts to 
complete the chemical weapons destruction project at 
Shchuch'ye, Russia; and included other provisions to ensure 
that wherever possible, the CTR Program addresses threats 
involving nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and 
weapons-related materials, technologies, and expertise.
    The committee also notes that the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 
110-53), passed in the 110th Congress by both the House and 
Senate as H.R. 1 and commonly known as ``the 9/11 bill,'' 
included a number of provisions and authorized funding to 
accelerate, strengthen, and expand the CTR Program.
    The committee believes there are additional opportunities 
for the CTR Program to address the wide variety of global 
threats arising from the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, 
and biological weapons and weapons-related materials, 
technologies, and expertise. The committee believes the CTR 
Program would continue to benefit from increased funding to 
develop new initiatives to address such threats.
    The committee authorizes $445.1 million, an increase of 
$31.0 million from the budget request for fiscal year 2009, 
which includes an increase of $10.0 million for new CTR 
initiatives that are outside the scope of existing activities 
and may include activities within Russia and the FSU, as well 
as outside the FSU.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                      Biological Threat Reduction

    The committee notes that the Biological Threat Reduction 
Program (BTRP) of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) 
Program has evolved from its original focus on dismantlement 
activities to a more comprehensive approach for reducing the 
full spectrum of biological threats. As a result, in recent 
years, the Department of Defense has significantly increased 
the amount of funds requested for BTRP activities relative to 
other areas of CTR work.
    The committee recognizes the importance of biological 
threat reduction activities to U.S. national security interests 
and believes the United States should be actively engaged in 
this area. However, the committee also believes that BTRP 
activities should be guided by a more comprehensive long-term 
inter-agency strategy for biological threat reduction and 
require: more robust inter-agency engagement and coordination; 
more rigorous Department of Defense management and oversight; 
better coordination and integration with other Department of 
Defense programs and activities; and concrete metrics for 
measuring BTRP progress.
    These concerns are consistent with findings and 
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences report 
required by section 1304 of the John Warmer National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-163) on 
BTRP activities. The committee also notes that the Secretary of 
Defense submitted an accompanying report to the committee on 
April 4, 2008, which stated support for key recommendations of 
the National Academy of Sciences with respect to BTRP 
activities and described planned actions to implement such 
recommendations.
    The committee encourages actions by the Secretary of 
Defense to strengthen BTRP activities, particularly in the area 
of inter-agency engagement and coordination to ensure that the 
Department of Defense is the appropriate agency to undertake 
specific biological threat reduction activities. The committee 
also strongly encourages the Department to maintain a strong 
focus within the CTR Program on other threat reduction 
challenges, including preventing the proliferation of chemical 
and nuclear weapons and weapons-related materials, 
technologies, and expertise.

            Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Project

    The committee continues to believe that completion of the 
chemical weapons destruction project in the Russian Federation 
at Shchuch'ye should be a high priority for the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. On May 23, 2007, the United 
States signed an agreement with the Russian Federation that 
significantly changed the strategy for the Shchuch'ye project 
and project implementation. Given these changes, the committee 
is conducting vigorous oversight on the project.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) required a report from the Secretary of 
Defense on the Shchuch'ye project, which included a current and 
detailed cost estimate for project completion and a specific 
strategic and operating plan for project completion, which sets 
forth: plans for project management and oversight; quality 
assurance and sustainability measures; metrics for measuring 
project progress; and a projected completion date. Public Law 
110-181 also urged the Secretary to take all necessary steps to 
ensure successful project completion so that the Shchuch'ye 
facility can begin to destroy the stockpile of Russian chemical 
weapons as soon as possible.
    The committee has reviewed the report on the Shchuch'ye 
project, submitted by the Secretary as Appendix G to the Fiscal 
Year 2009 CTR Annual Report to Congress, but remains concerned 
about project completion. The committee expects the Secretary 
to keep the committee fully informed of significant 
developments with respect to the project, and continues to urge 
the Secretary to take all necessary steps to successfully 
complete the project.

                         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 
specify that CTR funds shall 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 $445.1 million that the 
committee would authorize for the CTR Program. The allocation 
under this section reflects an $31.0 million increase from the 
budget request of $414.1 million for fiscal year 2009 as 
follows: $20.0 million for weapons of mass destruction 
proliferation prevention in Kazakhstan; $1.0 million for 
chemical weapons destruction; and $10.0 million to develop new 
CTR initiatives that are outside the scope of existing CTR 
activities and may include activities carried out in Russia and 
the former Soviet Union (FSU) or outside the FSU. This section 
would also require notification to Congress 30 days before the 
Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2009 
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.


                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


   Advance Procurement Funding for Dry-Cargo Ammunition Ships (T-AKE)

    The budget request contained $962.4 million in National 
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) budget line item (BLI) 0120 for the 
purchase of two dry-cargo ammunition ships (T-AKE) vessels in 
fiscal year 2009. The committee notes that one of these vessels 
was requested in fiscal year 2008. That request was authorized 
and appropriated, but subsequently the Department of the Navy 
did not execute the funding provided for procurement of the 
requested vessel.
    The committee also notes that the Department has revised 
the long range shipbuilding plan eliminating the final two 
vessels of the T-AKE class from the construction schedule. The 
committee disagrees with this course of action.
    The committee recommends an increase of $300.0 million in 
NDSF BLI 0120, and authorizes those funds for use to procure 
long lead material necessary for construction of the last two 
vessels of the T-AKE class.

    Use of the National Defense Sealift Fund for Procurement of New 
   Construction Vessels in the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future)

    The budget request contained $68.7 million in the National 
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF), Naval Sea Systems Command 
(NAVSEA), Reasearch and Development (R&D), budget line item 
(BLI) 0900, for research and development efforts associated 
with the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future).
    The committee understands that current law allows the use 
of the NDSF for research and development efforts for the 
construction of national defense sealift vessels. However, the 
committee believes that funding for research and development 
efforts for ships specifically constructed as Department of 
Defense sealift vessels more appropriately belongs in the 
appropriation Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy 
(RDTE, N).
    The committee authorizes $68.7 million, the amount of the 
budget request for research and development for the NDSF 
(NAVSEA R&D BLI 0900), but recommends a transfer of the funding 
to PE 0604567N, Ship Contract Design/Live Fire Test and 
Evaluation, in RDTE, N.

                     Subtitle A--Military Programs


                  Section 1401--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize $1.5 billion for Working 
Capital Funds.

              Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund

    This section would authorize $1.4 billion for the National 
Defense Sealift Fund.

                  Section 1403--Defense Health Program

    This section would authorize fiscal year 2009 funds for the 
Defense Health Program and other programs.
    The budget request contained $15.5 million for procurement 
of dental modules of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal 
Technology Application (AHLTA).
    The committee is concerned about the recent decision made 
by Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs to postpone deployment of AHLTA Block 4 in favor of 
consolidating deployment of AHLTA Block 3. The committee is 
aware that there were significant concerns regarding Block 3 
because user interface concerns have impeded use by 
practitioners. Those concerns were to be rectified in Block 4, 
and would likely have contributed to more widespread support of 
the system. The committee believes that this decision should be 
justified, and a path forward for deployment of Block 4 clearly 
articulated to the committee before further development of the 
system proceeds.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $15.5 million from 
the funds available for procurement.

    Section 1404--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

    This section would authorize $1.5 billion for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense.

 Section 1405--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
                                  Wide

    This section would authorize $1.1 billion for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities.

                Section 1406--Defense Inspector General

    This section would authorize $273.1 million for the 
Department of Defense Inspector General. This represents an 
increase of $24.0 million for operations and maintenance and 
$2.0 million for research and development. This increase would 
support increased audit, inspection policy oversight, and 
investigative efforts.

                 Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile


   Section 1411--Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds

    This section would authorize $41.2 million from the 
National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund for the operations 
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal 
year 2009. This section would also permit the use of additional 
funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after 
Congress receives notification.

  Section 1412--Revisions to Previously Authorized Disposals from the 
                       National Defense Stockpile

    This section would authorize revisions on limitations in 
asset sales contained in section 3303(a)(7) of the Strom 
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1999 (Public Law 105-261), as most recently amended by section 
1412(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
    This section would further authorize revisions on the 
Fiscal Year 1998 disposal authority contained in section 
3305(a)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently amended by 
section 3302(b) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).

                Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home


               Section 1421--Armed Forces Retirement Home

    This section would authorize over $63.0 million to be 
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home during fiscal year 2009.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


         Section 1431--Inapplicability of Executive Order 13457

    This section would make Executive Order 13457, ``Protecting 
American Taxpayers from Government Spending on Wasteful 
Earmarks,'' inapplicable to this Act or to the Joint 
Explanatory Statement accompanying this Act or to the committee 
reports of Senate Committee on Armed Services or the House 
Committee on Armed Services which accompany this Act.

  TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATION 
              IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for 
each fiscal year to include:
          (1) A request for the appropriation of funds for 
        ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 
        Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;
          (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 budget request for fiscal year 2008 complied with these 
requirements.
    The committee is concerned that the budget request for 
fiscal year 2009 did not comply with the requirements of 
section 1008. Instead, the budget request included $70.0 
billion for ongoing military operations with no supporting 
details or justification materials. However, the Secretary of 
Defense presented testimony to the committee that the 
Department of Defense anticipated a requirement for as much as 
$170.0 billion to fully fund ongoing military operations in 
fiscal year 2009.
    The committee understands that on May 2, 2008, the 
President transmitted to Congress amendments to the FY 2009 
budget totaling $70.0 billion. The budget amendments 
distributed the $70.0 billion previously submitted by 
appropriations accounts, but did not include detailed 
justification materials. The committee is disappointed that the 
amended budget request still does not comply with section 1008.
    The committee notes that it is the policy of the U.S. House 
of Representatives, as stated in section 502 of the FY 2009 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 312) as 
passed by the House, that ``the Administration's budget 
requests should comply with section 1008 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), and that the Administration should no longer attempt to 
fund overseas military operations through emergency 
supplemental appropriations requests.'' The committee strongly 
supports this policy.
    The committee further notes that the fiscal year 2009 
concurrent resolution on the budget included $70.0 billion for 
Overseas Deployments and Other Activities. In accordance with 
the budget resolution, the committee recommends authorization 
of $70.0 billion for ongoing military operations in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during 
fiscal year 2009 to assure no disruption during the 
Presidential transition. In the coming months, the committee 
expects to receive a full-year budget request and associated 
budget justification materials for ongoing military operations. 
The committee intends to address the full-year budget request 
for ongoing military operations as part of this Act prior to 
its enactment.

                    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


               Army Aircraft Repair and Recapitalization

    The committee is concerned that the continued stress of 
combat operations coupled with battle losses is reducing the 
readiness of Army aviation. The committee is recommending 
increases to improve repair and recapitalization of aviation 
assets to strengthen Army readiness.
    The committee recommends $291.4 million to inspect, 
overhaul, and repair crash damage on AH-64D, CH-47D, UH-60, MH-
47, and MH-60K helicopters. Additionally, the committee 
recommends $113.0 million to support the recapitalization of 20 
UH-60 aircraft.

   Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Operations Integration Center

    The committee is encouraged by efforts at the Counter-
Improvised Explosive Device Operations Integration Center 
(COIC) to provide effective reach-back capability for 
warfighters in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan. The ability to fuse intelligence from national 
agencies with data from tactical assets to provide timely 
operational support to ongoing missions is a model that is more 
relevant to the current and future threat environment than the 
predominant mechanisms developed during the Cold War.
    The committee is concerned that the capabilities of the 
COIC may be duplicative with other similar organizations within 
the military services and defense agencies. The committee 
directs the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 
Defeat Organization to submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report detailing COICs functions and how they are 
deconflicted with other similar efforts within the Department 
of Defense and the intelligence community. This report shall be 
due within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
          (1) A description of the capabilities provided by the 
        COIC, including both technical capabilities such as 
        data links and processing systems, as well as 
        analytical capabilities;
          (2) What similar capabilities exist within the 
        military services, combatant commands and intelligence 
        community, and how they complement or duplicate the 
        capabilities of the COIC;
          (3) What unique capabilities exist within the COIC 
        that are not duplicated anywhere else within the 
        military services, combatant commands or intelligence 
        community;
          (4) What measures the COIC has taken to coordinate 
        its efforts with these other entities (including, but 
        not limited to, personnel exchanges, liaison 
        assignments, and information exchanges);
          (5) What processes are in place to examine 
        capabilities on a continuous and ongoing basis to guard 
        against unwarranted duplication or redundancy; and
          (6) What actions are being taken to institutionalize 
        processes and knowledge to ensure that long-term 
        knowledge is preserved in the governmental personnel 
        base.

            Counter Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars Program

    The budget request contained no funds for the Counter-
Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars (C-RAM) program.
    The committee notes the remarkable and unprecedented 
success of C-RAM systems in protecting forward operating bases 
in Iraq. According to field commanders, C-RAM is a force 
multiplier that is saving lives. The committee understands that 
in response to a Joint Urgent Operational Need Statement 
(JUONS), the C-RAM program office developed an architecture 
utilizing existing platforms that provides significant enhanced 
capabilities to our forward operating bases. This capability 
was designated the Integrated Base Defense System of Systems 
(IBDSoS).
    The committee recommends $246.0 million, an increase of 
$246.0 million, for C-RAM in order to meet the targeting and 
surveillance requirements of forward operating bases in Iraq 
and Afghanistan requested by United States Central Command in 
the recently approved Base Expeditionary Targeting and 
Surveillance System--Combined JUONS by utilizing and fielding 
the IBDSoS as soon as possible. The capability to be provided 
will be the combat-proven IBDSoS capability that is being 
fielded by the C-RAM program office. IBDSoS capability provided 
to Iraq and Afghanistan will include installation, training, 
support, and integration with command and control systems as 
required by theater.

                                  F-22

    The fiscal year 2009 budget request did not include any 
funds for advance procurement of an additional lot of F-22s. 
The F-22 is a multi-mission fighter aircraft that combines a 
low-observable radar signature with an ability to cruise at 
supersonic speeds without the use of thrust augmentation, and 
performs air dominance, homeland and cruise missile defense, 
and air-to-ground attack missions.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force 
asserts a requirement for 381 F-22 aircraft, but that officials 
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense conclude that a force 
structure of 183 aircraft will be sufficient to meet 
requirements of the National Military Strategy.
    The committee understands and supports the Department of 
the Air Force requirement for 381 F-22 aircraft, and therefore 
recommends an increase of $523.0 million for the advance 
procurement of an additional lot of 20 aircraft in fiscal year 
2010. The committee strongly encourages the Department of the 
Air Force to include the budget necessary to fully fund 20 F-22 
aircraft in its fiscal year 2010 budget request.

           Global Improvised Explosive Device Threat Estimate

    Experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation 
Enduring Freedom (OEF) have illustrated the diffusion and 
proliferation of improvised explosive device (IED) designs, 
tactics, and supporting technologies. The Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) was established 
to handle this threat, and has invested significantly in 
developing countermeasures to IEDs.
    OIF and OEF have also illustrated how effective an 
asymmetric tactic such as IEDs can be against the United States 
military. Even as the U.S. involvement in these wars 
diminishes, it is likely that other potential adversaries in 
other regions of the world will have noted the tactical 
efficacy of IEDs in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. In order to benefit from the lessons 
learned, U.S. military services and intelligence agencies 
should now begin to analyze the threat posed by the 
proliferation of IED technologies and tactics, particularly 
related to potential future conflict zones.
    The committee directs the Director of JIEDDO to provide a 
report, which shall be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees within one year after the date of enactment of this 
Act, on the projected IED threat for each combatant command 
area of responsibility through the year 2018. The preparation 
of this report shall be led by JIEDDO, but coordinated with all 
of the military services, combatant commands and the 
Intelligence Community, including those responsible for 
domestic homeland security and law enforcement activities. As 
needed, the team leading this effort should be 
multidisciplinary and include participants from scientific and 
engineering organizations.
    While not limited to the following items, the IED estimate 
should include:
          (1) IED operational capability and employment trends 
        by terrorist groups, with emphasis on areas outside of 
        Iraq and Afghanistan;
          (2) Technology trends related to deception, triggers, 
        energetics, and other trends;
          (3) Red team scenarios that explore attack tactics, 
        techniques, and procedures as they might be implemented 
        by various non-state actors in each combatant command's 
        areas of responsibility; and
          (4) Countermeasures development and deployment.

                        Increased Army Training

    The committee is concerned about the declining readiness 
posture of Army units. Department of Defense readiness reports 
indicate that every non-deployed Army and Army National Guard 
combat brigade would face significant challenges completing 
their assigned full-spectrum combat missions if they were 
called upon to fight. The Army is expending significant effort 
preparing units for combat, and Army training is focusing 
heavily on counter-insurgency operations, resulting in an 
overall reduction of full-spectrum mission capability. The 
committee is concerned about the Army's degraded capabilities 
and urges the Secretary of Defense to take every measure 
possible to restore full combat capability and reduce strategic 
risk.
    The committee is recommending funds in several areas to 
increase training and begin to restore lost full-spectrum 
capabilities. The committee recommends $350.0 million for 
increased ground operations tempo to support additional 
training of non-deployed units. The committee also recommends 
$98.0 million for exportable training programs from the combat 
training centers to enhance unit training at home station. 
Additionally, the committee recommends $32.0 million to 
increase Battle Command Training Capability.

                       Iraq Security Forces Fund

    The committee notes that the amended budget request for 
fiscal year 2009 included $2.0 billion for the Iraq Security 
Forces Fund (ISFF). The committee recommends $1.0 billion for 
ISFF. The committee believes that the Government of Iraq should 
assume greater responsibility for funding activities associated 
with building and supporting the Iraqi Security Forces. The 
committee therefore has prohibited the use of U.S.-provided 
funds in the ISFF for the construction or rehabilitation of 
infrastructure as the committee believes that the Government of 
Iraq should more properly conduct this function. The committee 
believes that the funds provided will be sufficient to conduct 
those activities necessary under the ISFF. However, the 
committee also expects that the President will make a further 
budget request to support ongoing operations in fiscal year 
2009 and will continue to monitor the need for additional funds 
for the ISFF.

                       Human Terrain Team Support

    The committee supports the concept for the prototype Human 
Terrain Teams (HTT) currently supporting Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. HTTs have been 
instrumental in saving the lives of coalition troops by 
reducing casualties among Afghani and Iraqi civilians. HTTs 
provide our warfighters with non-kinetic options in planning 
and carrying out their missions. The committee is aware that 
the first prototype HTT is credited with reducing kinetic 
operations by more than 60 percent during its first 6 months of 
deployment in Operation Enduring Freedom. HTTs are critical 
enablers to shaping military planning in pre-conflict 
environments, and are supportive of reconstruction and 
stabilization efforts. HTTs are currently proving their value 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the committee believes that 
capability would prove equally valuable in other combatant 
command areas of responsibility.
    The committee recommends $90.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance for the purpose of fielding additional HTTs to meet 
the current Central Command requirement of 26 teams. The 
committee encourages the Department to begin training, 
equipping, deploying, and sustaining human terrain teams with 
other regional combatant commands to include at least one each 
for Pacific Command, Southern Command, and Africa Command.

      Production Rates of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles

    The committee is concerned that all industrial facilities 
that are currently producing mine resistant ambush protected 
vehicles (MRAP) are not operating at maximum capacity. This is 
troublesome because these vehicles have been proven to save 
lives in combat. The committee notes the extraordinary effort 
it took to produce 8,000 MRAPs for the theater of operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan in just 17 months since the Secretary of 
Defense made this program his top procurement priority.
    However, the committee believes these vehicles are not 
being built in sufficient quantity to supply the troops in The 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and to 
supply vehicles for training facilities in the United States as 
quickly as possible. The committee believes strongly that 
troops in pre-deployment training for service in the Republic 
of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan should have the 
ability to train in the same types of equipment that they will 
use while deployed in combat theaters of operation.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report on 
the current status of production of the MRAP vehicles that 
details the current and projected output of vehicles at each 
MRAP production facility, and the overall maximum capacity of 
the facility. The report should identify any additional funding 
necessary to complete production of the validated MRAP vehicle 
requirement. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary 
to report on the plans, if any, to field these vehicles to 
training facilities to allow familiarization training prior to 
deployment to the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan. The committee expects this information from the 
Secretary as soon as practicable either by direct briefing from 
representative of the Secretary or by written report.

      Special Operations Command Aircraft Radar Warning Receivers

    The budget request contained $52.0 million for rotary wing 
upgrades and sustainment but contained no funding to replace 
existing aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) onboard MM-60 
aircraft.
    The committee understands that existing ASE systems aboard 
160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) assets 
are inadequate to meet the current threat. The committee 
further understands that the AN/ALQ-211 suite of integrated 
radio frequency countermeasures (SIRFC) is under development to 
meet the threat. The committee recognizes that this is an 
unfunded requirement for Special Operations Command, supports 
the effort to upgrade the entire 160th fleet with SIRFC, as 
appropriate, and urges further acquisition of these systems.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $74.8 
million to procure and field SIRFC systems onboard MM-60 
aircraft.

              Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization

    The construction required to support the 2005 Base Closure 
and Realignment decisions, concurrent with the Grow the Force 
Initiative have put severe strain on military infrastructure. 
This strain was recently recognized in an Army barracks review 
that noted significant quality of life issues for our soldiers 
at multiple installations. In order to address the quality of 
life at Army installations, the Army has embarked on an 
expansive barracks modernization program to recapitalize older 
infrastructure and has elected to concentrate recapitalization 
efforts initially on permanent party barracks. At the same 
time, the Army has placed the lowest priority on recruit 
training and Advanced Individual Training barracks. These 
barracks are in a severe state of dilapidation and require a 
significant investment to arrest the continued deterioration. 
Unfortunately, the Department has decided not to request 
Operations and Maintenance funds to support Army Restoration 
and Modernization projects for fiscal year 2009. If enacted, 
this budget request would continue to exacerbate the 
accelerated decline of infrastructure in the Army.
    Additionally, the Department continues to rely heavily on 
relocatable facilities to augment basing decisions and 
accelerate rebasing requirements. While the decisions to use 
relocatable facilities are effective in the short-term, many of 
these temporary facilities remain in use well beyond their 
effective life because the Department has not programmed 
sufficient, permanent facilities. While temporary, relocatable 
structures may be appropriate to support short-term mission 
requirements, they are not acceptable to use when better, long-
term solutions can save money and provide better quality of 
life support for our soldiers and Marines.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $650.0 
million to the Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 
account allocated as follows: $500.0 million to support Army 
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization; $50.0 
million to support Air Force Facilities Sustainment, 
Restoration, and Modernization; $50.0 million to support Navy 
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization; and $50.0 million 
to support Marine Corps Sustainment, Restoration, and 
Modernization. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, 
by March 1, 2009, the Department's plan to replace temporary, 
relocatable facilities with permanent facilities by fiscal year 
2015.

           War Reserve Secondary Items--Prepositioned Stocks

    The committee continues to be concerned about the status of 
prepositioned stocks of combat equipment. The Army has drawn 
down these stocks to support ongoing operations and to fill 
shortfalls across the force. This drawdown has increased the 
time it would take to deploy equipment to a contingency. The 
committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to work 
aggressively to restore the prepositioned stocks.
    The committee recommends an additional $150.0 million to 
support the purchase of war reserve secondary items to fill the 
Army prepositioned stocks shortages.

                         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.

                     Section 1502--Army Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $2.2 billion for 
Army procurement.

            Section 1503--Navy and Marine Corps Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $1.0 billion for 
Navy and Marine Corps procurement.

                  Section 1504--Air Force Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $6.1 billion for 
Air Force procurement.

           Section 1505--Defense-Wide Activities Procurement

    This section would authorize an additional $177.2 million 
for Defense-Wide Activities procurement.

                  Section 1506--Rapid Acquisition Fund

    This section would authorize an additional $102.0 million 
for the Rapid Acquisition Fund.

      Section 1507--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

    This section would authorize an additional $2.5 billion for 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. This section 
would require that of the funds appropriated to the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, $50.0 million shall be 
made available for the rapid fielding of additional Aerial 
Reconnaissance Multi-Sensor platforms for tactical operations 
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

     Section 1508--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Joint 
 Improvised Explosive Devices Defeat Organization Pending Notification 
                              to Congress

    This section would limit the amount of funds that the Joint 
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office (JIEDDO) may obligate 
for science and technology until the committee is provided 
JIEDDO's science and technology roadmap.
    The committee is aware that JIEDDO has been funding science 
and technology (S&T) efforts over the past three years to 
address the challenge of improvised explosive devices. Early 
investments were driven more by operational necessity than by a 
carefully considered strategic plan.
    As the wars in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan have matured, the committee has grown 
more concerned that the lack of such an investment strategy is 
becoming a significant hindrance. It hinders the Department of 
Defense as it coordinates S&T across the services and agencies, 
it hinders Congress in providing oversight and accountability, 
and it hinders the industrial sector due to the lack of 
visibility into the needs of JIEDDO and the Department.
    The committee understands that JIEDDO has been preparing an 
S&T investment strategy that has undergone several iterations 
and has been in a review and approval process for several 
months. The committee believes that JIEDDO must put greater 
emphasis on issuing an S&T investment strategy that is both 
timely and distributed to as wide a community as possible.

       Section 1509--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

    This section would authorize an additional $387.8 million 
for research, development, test and evaluation.

                Section 1510--Operation and Maintenance

    This section would authorize an additional $52.0 billion 
for operations and maintenance programs.

           Section 1511--Other Department of Defense Programs

    This section would authorize an additional $1.3 billion to 
other Department of Defense programs.

                Section 1512--Iraq Security Forces Fund

    This section would authorize an additional $1.0 billion to 
the Iraq Security Forces Fund. This section would also prohibit 
the use of monies in this fund for construction purposes.

             Section 1513--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

    This section would authorize an additional $2.0 billion to 
the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.

                    Section 1514--Military Personnel

    This section would authorize an additional $1.2 billion for 
military personnel.

       Section 1515--Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund

    This section would authorize the transfer of $2.6 billion, 
by transfer, into the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle 
Fund.

                Section 1516--Special Transfer Authority

    This section would authorize the transfer of up to an 
additional $4.0 billion of war-related funding authorizations 
in this title among the accounts in this title.

          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--RECONSTRUCTION AND STABILIZATION CIVILIAN MANAGEMENT

                                OVERVIEW

    This title would incorporate the text of H.R. 1084 of the 
110th Congress, which passed the House of Representatives on 
March 7, 2008. The report of the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs on H.R. 1084 (H. Rept. 110-537) should be considered 
the definitive explanation of this title. It would amend the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2351 et seq.) to 
authorize the President to furnish assistance, of up to $100.0 
million a year in fiscal years 2008-2010, following pre-
notification to Congress, for stabilizing and reconstructing a 
country or region that is in, or is in transition from, 
conflict or civil strife. It would establish an Office of the 
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization within the 
Department of State to conduct reconstruction and stabilization 
operations. It would authorize the Secretary of State to 
establish and maintain a response readiness corps and a 
civilian reserve corps and would authorize the appropriation of 
such sums as may be necessary during fiscal years 2007-2010 for 
personnel, education and training, equipment, travel, and 
deployment costs.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                       Section 1601--Short Title

    This section would provide that the title may be referred 
to as the ``Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian 
Management Act of 2008.''

                         Section 1602--Findings

    This section would contain congressional findings 
describing efforts to improve the United States' capacity to 
respond to stabilization and reconstruction operations, 
including the establishment of the Office of the Coordinator 
for Stabilization and Reconstruction in June 2004, the issuance 
of the National Security Presidential Directive 44 which 
instructed the Secretary of State to coordinate and lead 
integrated United States Government efforts to prepare, plan 
for, and conduct stabilization and reconstruction operations, 
and release of Department of Defense Directive 3000.05 which 
established that stability operations are a core United States 
military mission that the Department of Defense must be 
prepared to conduct and support.

                       Section 1603--Definitions

    This section provides definitions for use in the Act.

 Section 1604--Authority to Provide Assistance for Reconstruction and 
                          Stabilization Crises

    This section would amend chapter 1 of part III of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by adding a new section 618--
Assistance for a Reconstruction and Stabilization Crisis--which 
provides that the President may, in accordance with section 
614(a)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act, and subject to pre-
notification requirements and notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, furnish assistance to a country or region 
that is at risk of, in, or is in transition from, conflict or 
civil strife for stabilization or reconstruction if the 
President determines that it is in the national security 
interests of the United States for U.S. civilian agencies or 
non-federal employees to assist in stabilizing or 
reconstructing such country or region. This new section 618 
would prohibit the President from providing stabilization and 
reconstruction assistance unless Congress is notified five 
working days before such assistance is provided. This section 
would also allow funds to be made available (subject to the 
same pre-notification requirements) for stabilization and 
reconstruction assistance under any other provision of law and 
under provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that are 
transferred or reprogrammed for the purpose of carrying out 
stabilization and reconstruction assistance.

             Section 1605--Reconstruction and Stabilization

    This section would amend title I of the State Department 
Basic Authorities Act of 1956 by adding a new section 62, which 
would establish the Office of the Coordinator for 
Reconstruction and Stabilization within the Department of State 
and creates the Response Readiness Corps

             Section 1606--Authorities Related to Personnel

    This section would authorize the Secretary of State, or the 
head of any U.S. agency with respect to personnel of that 
agency, to extend to any individual assigned, detailed, or 
deployed under this Act certain death gratuity, training, and 
travel expense benefits or privileges that are provided to 
members of the Foreign Service under the Foreign Service Act of 
1980.

        Section 1607--Reconstruction and Stabilization Strategy

    This section would require the Secretary of State to 
develop an inter-agency strategy to respond to stabilization 
and reconstruction operations which would include, but not be 
limited to: the identification of, and efforts to improve, the 
skills set needed to respond to and support stabilization and 
reconstruction operations; the identification of specific 
agencies that can adequately satisfy such skills sets; efforts 
to increase training of federal civilian personnel to carry out 
stabilization and reconstruction activities; efforts to develop 
a database of proven and best practices based on previous 
stabilization and reconstruction operations; and a plan to 
coordinate the activities of agencies involved in stabilization 
and reconstruction operations.

                Section 1608--Annual Reports to Congress

    This section would require the Secretary of State to submit 
a report on the implementation of this Act to the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act and annually thereafter.

            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 2009. As recommended by the committee, 
Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$24,400,239,000 for construction in support of the active 
forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for 
fiscal year 2009.

           MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW

    The Department of Defense requested $11,738,021,000 for 
military construction, $9,458,763,000 for Base Closure and 
Realignment (BRAC) activities, and $3,203,455,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends 
authorization of $11,831,930,000 for military construction, 
$9,458,763,000 for BRAC activities, and $3,166,455,000 for 
family housing in fiscal year 2009. The committee's 
recommendations are consistent with a total budget authority 
level of $24,400,239,000 for military construction, BRAC, and 
family housing in fiscal year 2009.


                       Section 2001--Short Title

    This section would cite Division B of this Act as the 
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009.''

 Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be 
                            Specified by Law

    This section would ensure that the authorizations provided 
in titles XXI through XXVI and title XXIX shall expire on 
October 1, 2011, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever 
is later.

                            TITLE XXI--ARMY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $4,615,920,000 for Army 
military construction and $1,394,690,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends authorization of 
$4,645,536,000 for military construction and $1,362,690,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2009.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                    Sierra Army Depot Drinking Water

    The committee believes that the Department of the Army is 
being proactive in submitting a military construction project 
at Sierra Army Depot that would bring the water quality into 
conformance with the State of California drinking standards. At 
the same the time, the committee is also encouraged that the 
Herlong Public Utility District has been organized to provide 
potable water to the local community and is preparing a 
proposal for the Department of the Army's consideration to 
privatize the water resources.
    The committee urges the Department to promptly consider the 
Herlong Public Utility District's proposal to privatize the 
water utility and if the proposal is in the government's best 
interest, to promptly convey the utility and offset the overall 
costs of the project by the proceeds provided by the military 
construction project.

                   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) $15,000,000 for the Brigade Complex at Vicenza, Italy. 
The budget request contained $30,000,000 to construct a 
standard brigade set.
    The committee supports the restationing of assets at 
Vicenza, Italy. However, the committee supports the authorizing 
for appropriations of 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 its ability to fully 
expend the funding in fiscal year 2009.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $15,000,000, a 
reduction of $15,000,000, to support construction of this 
project.
    (2) $59,500,000 for the Command and Battle Center at 
Wiesbaden Military Community, Germany. The budget request 
contained $119,000,000 to construct the headquarters element.
    The committee supports the 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 2009.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $59,500,000, a 
reduction of $59,500,000, to support construction of this 
project.
    (3) $30,000,000 for Planning and Design. The budget request 
contained $176,807,000 for general planning and design support.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Army has 
elected to use planning and design funds to offset military 
construction shortfalls throughout the program. While there are 
no reprogramming restrictions that would prohibit this 
practice, the committee does not believe that it is an 
appropriate source of funds for future reprogrammings.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $146,807,000, a 
reduction of $30,000,000, to support continued planning and 
design support worldwide.
    (4) $31,000,000 for the construction of family housing 
units at Wiesbaden, Germany. The budget request contained 
$95,000,000.
    The committee notes that the German government is in the 
process of providing access to land that would allow the 
Department of Defense to construct additional family housing 
units. However, the timeline to provide access to the family 
housing complex may be delayed. Furthermore, the Department of 
the Army is reporting that construction would not start until 
summer 2009. The committee supports the 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 2009.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $74,000,000, a 
reduction of $31,000,000, to support construction of family 
housing units.

                          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) $300,000--Hatfield Gate Expansion, Fort Myer, Virginia.

                         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 2009. 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 
2009.

      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2009.

          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year 
2009 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 2008 Projects
    This section would terminate certain military construction 
authorizations provided in the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public 
Law 110-181).
    Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
Certain Fiscal Year 2007 Projects
    This section would terminate certain military construction 
authorizations provided in the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (division B of Public 
Law 109-364).

 Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2006 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2009, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later.

 Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2005 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2009, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later.

                            TITLE XXII--NAVY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $3,096,399,000 for Navy 
military construction and $758,840,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends authorization of 
$3,237,609,000 for military construction and $758,840,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2009.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


   Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms, 
                       California Land Expansion

    The committee understands the Marine Corps intends to 
expand the training area at MCAGCC and will begin the required 
environmental studies this year. While the committee believes 
the Marine Corps must have sufficient training lands for 
realistic training, the committee expects the Marine Corps to 
carefully consider and, to the maximum extent possible, 
minimize the loss of land to other legitimate uses in preparing 
its plans. In that regard, the committee encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy to work with the Bureau of Land 
Management in ensuring the proposed expansion of MCAGCC is 
consistent with the development plans associated with the 
Pacific Gas and Electric Mojave Solar Plant and related project 
and will minimize the withdrawal of land from public use 
available for recreational activities such as off-highway 
vehicles. The committee is encouraged by the Marine Corps 
intent to include all stakeholders in the land acquisition 
process.

                          Planning and Design

    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 
project:
    (1) $1,450,000--Drydock #3, Waterfront Support Facility, 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Maine.

                         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 2009. 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 
2009.

      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2009.

          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year 
2009 for the Navy. This section would also provide an overall 
limit on the amount the Navy may spend on military construction 
projects.

  Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2005 Project

    This section would increase the authorization for a project 
at Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific, Bangor, Washington.

  Section 2206--Modification of Authority to Carry out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2007 Projects

    This section would increase the authorizations for projects 
at Naval Support Activity, Suitland, Maryland, and at Naval Air 
Station, Whidbey Island, Washington, and other conforming 
amendments.

      Section 2207--Report on Impacts of Surface Ship Homeporting 
                              Alternatives

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from 
issuing a record of decision for the proposed homeporting of 
additional ships at Naval Station Mayport until at least 30 
days after the date on which the Secretary submits a report on 
the socioeconomic impact and economic justification of the 
preferred alternatives identified in the final environmental 
impact statement.

                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $934,892,000 for Air Force 
military construction and $995,344,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends authorization of 
$976,524,000 for military construction and $990,344,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2009.

                       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) $59,638,000 for a Close Air Support Parking Apron at Al 
Udeid, Qatar. The budget request contained $59,638,000 for 
construction of the aircraft parking apron.
    The committee notes that the Department has made a request 
for this project in its request for emergency funding for 
ongoing military operations.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $0, a reduction of 
$59,638,000, to support construction of this project.
    (2) $5,000,000 for Planning and Design. The budget request 
contained $70,494,000 for general planning and design support.
    The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force 
has elected to use planning and design funds to offset military 
construction shortfalls throughout the program. While there are 
no reprogramming restrictions that would prohibit this 
practice, the committee does not believe that it is appropriate 
source of funds for future reprogrammings.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $65,494,000, a 
reduction of $5,000,000, to support continued planning and 
design support worldwide.

                          Planning and Design

    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) $1,755,000--Repair Runway Pavement, Luke Air 
        Force Base, Arizona;
          (2) $1,704,000--Air Traffic Control Complex, Minot 
        Air Force Base, North Dakota;
          (3) $900,000--Security Forces Building Phase I, 
        Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
          (4) $1,440,000--Student Officer Quarters, Phase II, 
        Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas; and
          (5) $972,000--Fire and Rescue Station, Randolph 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 2009. 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 2009.

      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2009.

        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 
2009 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--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2006 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2009, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later.

 Section 2306--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2005 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2009, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later.

                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,783,998,000 for defense 
agency military construction and $54,581,000 for family housing 
for fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,455,969,000 for military construction and $54,581,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2009.
    The budget request also contained $134,278,000 for chemical 
demilitarization construction. The committee recommends 
authorization of $134,278,000 for military construction for 
fiscal year 2009.

                       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) $100,000,000 for the U.S. Army Medical Research 
Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Stage 1, Increment 
III at Fort Detrick, Maryland. The budget request contained 
$209,000,000 to recapitalize and update USAMRIID.
    The committee supports the authorizing for appropriations 
of 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 its ability to fully expend the funding in 
fiscal year 2009.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $109,000,000, a 
reduction of $100,000,000, to support construction of this 
project.
    (2) $17,000,000 for the South Campus Utility Plant Phase 1 
at Fort Meade, Maryland. The budget request contained 
$31,000,000 to provide better mission assurity to maintain 
operations at Fort Mead, Maryland.
    The committee believes that the Department inappropriately 
requested a phased project that will not provide a complete and 
usable facility within the phase. The committee does believe 
that there is a complete storm water management system within 
the budget request for this project that should continue. The 
committee supports Fort Meade's mission assurity intentions and 
urges the Department to submit a project for the full scope of 
the intended effort that has been properly coordinated with the 
host installation in the next budget cycle.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $14,000,000, a 
reduction of $17,000,000, to support the construction of the 
storm water management system.
    (3) $19,761,000 for the Fuel Storage Tanks and Pipeline 
Replacement at Souda Bay, Greece. The budget request contained 
$27,761,000 to recapitalize and upgrade the existing fuel 
storage capabilities.
    The committee notes that this committee previously provided 
an authorization for this project but that the Department and 
the host nation could not reach agreement as to the necessity 
of this project. The committee understands that these 
differences have been ameliorated, but the committee believes 
that this project should be supported by the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Programme.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $8,000,000, a 
reduction of $19,761,000, to support construction of this 
project.
    (4) $80,000,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense System--
European Interceptor Site. The budget request contained 
$132,600,000 to start construction of the facilities to support 
the interceptor site.
    The committee supports the full scope of the project and 
the integration with a radar site. However, the committee 
supports the 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 its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal 
year 2009. Furthermore, the committee urges the Department to 
submit this project for funding consideration in the NATO 
Security Investment Programme.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $52,600,000, a 
reduction of $80,000,000, to support construction of this 
project.
    (5) $60,000,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense System--
European Midcourse Radar Site. The budget request contained 
$108,560,000 to start construction of the facilities to support 
the midcourse radar site.
    The committee supports the full scope of the project and 
the integration with a interceptor site. However, the committee 
supports the 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 2009. Furthermore, the committee urges the 
Department to submit this project for funding consideration in 
the NATO Security Investment Programme.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $48,560,000, a 
reduction of $60,000,000, to support construction of this 
project.
    (6) $25,500,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense System--
Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance -2 #3. The budget 
request contained $25,500,000 to start construction of the 
facilities to support the radar surveillance site.
    The committee supports the authorizing for appropriations 
of 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 its ability to expend the funding in 
fiscal year 2009 and may not be able to make construction award 
in fiscal year 2009.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $0, a reduction of 
$25,500,000, to support construction of this project.
    (7) $17,768,000 for Planning and Design for the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense. The budget request contained 
$43,768,000 to initiate planning and design projects but is out 
of line with previous authorizations for appropriations.
    The committee believes that the budget request represents 
unjustified growth from a fiscal year 2006 baseline.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends $26,000,000, a 
reduction of $17,768,000, to support planning and design 
efforts.
    (8) $15,000,000 for Planning and Design for various Defense 
Agencies.
    The committee notes that several Defense Agencies have 
elected to use planning and design funds to offset military 
construction shortfalls throughout the program. While there are 
no reprogramming restrictions that would prohibit this 
practice, the committee does not believe that it is appropriate 
source of funds for future reprogrammings.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of 
$15,000,000, to support continued planning and design support 
worldwide.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations


    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section contains the list of defense agencies 
construction projects that would be authorized for fiscal year 
2009. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

               Section 2402--Energy Conservation Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out energy conservation projects.

    Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year 
2009 for the defense agencies. This section would also provide 
an overall limit on the amount the defense agencies may spend 
on military construction projects.

  Section 2404--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2007 Project

    This section would increase the existing authorization for 
a TRICARE Management Activity at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

  Section 2405--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2005 Projects

    This section would terminate certain military construction 
authorizations provided in the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (division B of Public 
Law 108-375).

 Section 2406--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2006 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2009, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later.

          Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations


Section 2411--Authorized Chemical Demilitarization Program Construction 
                     and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would contain the list of authorized chemical 
demilitarization construction projects for fiscal year 2009. 
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 2412--Authorization of Appropriations, Chemical 
              Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the budget request for fiscal year 
2009 for the chemical demilitarization construction. This 
section would also provide an overall limit on the amount the 
chemical demilitarization office may spend on military 
construction projects.

  Section 2413--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 1997 Projects

    This section would provide an authorization to continue 
chemical demilitarization construction at Pueblo Army Depot, 
Colorado.

  Section 2414--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2000 Projects

    This section would provide an authorization to continue 
chemical demilitarization construction at Blue Grass Army 
Depot, Kentucky.

   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $240,867,000 for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) 
for fiscal year 2009. The committee recommends authorization of 
$240,867,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2009.

                         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 $240,867,000 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 $931,667,000 for military 
construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 
2009. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 
2009 of $1,141,147,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard.....................................    $628,668,000
Air National Guard......................................     142,809,000
Army Reserve............................................     282,607,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................      57,045,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      30,018,000

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                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) $579,000--Readiness Center Addition/Alteration, 
        Dundalk, Maryland;
          (2) $1,005,000--Infrastructure Improvements, Arden 
        Hills ATS, Minnesota;
          (3) $200,000--Readiness Center, Fort McClellan, 
        Alabama;
          (4) $1,376,000--Training Complex, Camp Butner, North 
        Carolina;
          (5) $3,250,000--Combined Support Maintenance Shop, 
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
          (6) $382,000--Readiness Center, Sumter, South 
        Carolina;
          (7) $1,085,000--Readiness Center and NGB Conference 
        Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia; and
          (8) $323,000--Readiness Center, Ethan Allen Range, 
        Vermont.

                   Planning and Design, Army Reserve

    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 
project:
          (1) $920,000--Army Reserve Center, Bryan, Texas.

                Planning and Design, Air 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) $400,000--C-130 Squadron Operations Center, 
        Greater Peoria, Illinois;
          (2) $1,700,000--TFI Digital Ground Station FOC 
        Beddown, Otis Army National Guard Base, Massachusetts; 
        and
          (3) $600,000--Replace Control Tower, Quonset State 
        AP, Rhode Island.

                    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 
project:
          (1) $943,000--Joint Service Lodging Facility, 
        Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts.

                   Niagara Air Reserve Base, New York

    The committee believes that timely infrastructure 
improvements should be made at Niagara Air Reserve Base and 
should be provided priority in the Future Years Defense Program 
(FYDP). Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Air 
Force to accelerate projects, such as the programming to design 
and construct a small arms range at Niagara Air Reserve Base, 
New York, in the next FYDP.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


  Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize military construction for the 
Army National Guard for fiscal year 2009. The authorized 
amounts are listed on a location by location basis.

Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize military construction for the 
Army Reserve for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are 
listed on a location by location basis.

    Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
               Construction and Land Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize military construction for the 
Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2009. The 
authorized amounts are listed on a location by location basis.

   Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize military construction for the 
Air National Guard for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts 
are listed on a location by location basis.

   Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize military construction for the 
Air Force Reserve for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts 
are listed on a location by location basis.

   Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and 
                                Reserve

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for 
fiscal year 2009. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

 Section 2607--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2006 
                                Projects

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2009, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later.

 Section 2608--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2005 
                                Project

    This section would extend the authorizations listed until 
October 1, 2009, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2010, whichever is later.

          TITLE XXVII--BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $393,377,000 for activities 
related to prior Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) activities 
and $9,065,386,000 for activities related to BRAC 2005. The 
committee recommends authorization of $393,377,000 for prior 
BRAC round activities and $9,065,386,000 for BRAC 2005 
activities.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


         Base Closure and Realignment 2005 Program Underfunding

    The committee remains concerned that the Department of 
Defense has not used the appropriate cost indices to correctly 
account for construction cost escalation and has underfunded 
the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 2005 account. In a 
report to Congress dated February 28, 2008, the Undersecretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics reported 
that the budget request for fiscal year 2008 did not include 
the full scope of projects and indicated that the fiscal year 
2008 BRAC construction program ``is generally underfunded for 
the current construction market'' and ``will pose a clear 
challenge to executing FY 2008 projects.'' The report also 
indicated that the combined impacts of the Guidance Unit Cost 
and the Area Cost Factor would result in an 11 percent 
increase, or $736.0 million to the execution of the BRAC 
program. The committee recommends that the Department use the 
reprogramming authority to correctly fund the required scope of 
construction and not reduce the scope of the projects to match 
available funding.
    The committee is also concerned about statements from the 
Department of Defense's witnesses before the Subcommittee on 
Readiness that indicated the BRAC 2005 program is fully funded. 
Contradicting these statements is a report to Congress dated 
March 14, 2008, in which the Secretary of the Army reported 
numerous BRAC 2005 projects that have been deferred until after 
the statutory completion date.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report, by 
March 1, 2009, with the following information:
          (1) Progress of properly funding the BRAC 2005 
        construction projects, commensurate with civilian 
        construction cost indices;
          (2) Assessment of the BRAC 2005 construction program 
        if the appropriate Area Cost Factors and Guidance Use 
        Costs were incorporated in the budget request for 
        fiscal year 2010; and
          (3) Assessment of BRAC 2005 construction projects 
        that have been deferred until after the statutory 
        completion date.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                       Subtitle A--Authorizations


  Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Closure and 
   Realignment Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base 
                          Closure Account 1990

    This section would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2009 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the 
decision of the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 Base Closure and 
Realignment.

Section 2702--Authorized Base Closure and Realignment Activities Funded 
        through Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005

    This section would authorize military construction projects 
for fiscal year 2009 for ongoing activities that are required 
to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Closure and 
Realignment. The table included in this title of this report 
lists the specific amount authorized at each location.

  Section 2703--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Closure and 
   Realignment Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base 
                          Closure Account 2005

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
construction projects for fiscal year 2009 that are required to 
implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Closure and 
Realignment (BRAC) round. This provision would also provide an 
overall limit of the amount authorized for BRAC military 
construction projects. The state list contained in this report 
provides a list of specific projects authorized at each 
location.

        Subtitle B--Amendments to Base Closure and Related Laws


 Section 2711--Repeal of the Commission Approach to the Development of 
 Recommendations in Any Future Round of Base Closures and Realignments

    This section would repeal the process for arriving at Base 
Closure and Realignment (BRAC) decisions.
    The committee remains supportive of tools that allow the 
Department of Defense to productively right size defense 
infrastructure with the current defense mission. Traditionally, 
the BRAC process was used as the process to institute this 
change. However, the 2005 BRAC process was modified from a 
method of managing excess infrastructure into a process that 
instituted internal organizational change at a time when the 
Department was undergoing severe strain and prosecuting 
conflicts on multiple fronts. Ultimately, the Department only 
marginally reduced defense infrastructure and a very activist 
BRAC Commission modified 35 percent of the Department's 
recommendation.
    In instituting the recommendations, significant changes 
have occurred since the BRAC Commission concluded their review. 
For example, the Comptroller General recently reported that the 
BRAC 2005 costs have increased by 48 percent and the projected 
savings have been reduced by 5 percent. This cost growth is 
reflective of an inadequate comparative tool that was used to 
evaluate various scenarios. Furthermore, some state and local 
communities have been unable to cope with the level of change 
recommended by the BRAC process and are expressing concerns 
about their ability to provide commensurate support in 
transportation and public school sectors.
    The committee believes that the Department needs to change 
the methods and application of the base closure process before 
requesting another base closure round.

   Section 2712--Modification of Annual Base Closure and Realignment 
                         Reporting Requirements

    This section would amend the annual reporting requirements 
associated with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
1990 (Public Law 101-510).

Section 2713--Technical Corrections Regarding Authorized Cost and Scope 
   of Work Variations for Military Construction and Military Family 
       Housing Projects Related to Base Closures and Realignments

    This section would provide a technical correction to the 
Base Closure and Realignment construction notification clause 
and require the Department of Defense to report costs and scope 
variances that exceed 20 percent or $2,000,000, whichever is 
lesser.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


    Section 2721--Conditions on Closure of Walter Reed Army Medical 
Hospital and Relocation of Operations to National Naval Medical Center 
                            and Fort Belvoir

    This section would direct the Department of Defense to 
cease construction beyond work necessary to complete the 
foundation of the replacement facilities until the Secretary of 
Defense certifies the following items have been completed: 90 
percent of the construction design; an independent cost 
estimate to complete the realignment of the Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center; and a milestone schedule to complete the 
proposed realignment.
    The committee remains committed to implementing the 
Department's goal of transforming the National Capitol Region 
Health Care System into a world class medical center at the hub 
of our nation's premiere regional health care system serving 
our military and our nation. As such, it is critical to ensure 
that this vision is integrated into the ongoing design and 
construction required of the realignment of the Walter Reed 
Army Medical Center. Therefore, the committee believes that a 
higher level of design is required before vertical construction 
commences, better cost controls are implemented, and a 
comprehensive schedule is complete to ensure a seamless 
transition from existing capabilities into a world class 
medical system.

Section 2722--Report on Use of BRAC Properties as Sites for Refineries 
                        or Nuclear Power Plants

    This section would require a study evaluating the 
feasibility of using military installations selected for 
closure under the base closure and realignment process as 
locations for the construction of petroleum or natural gas 
refineries or nuclear power plants.

         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                Defense Critical Infrastructure Program

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 
established the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program (DCIP) 
pursuant to Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 3020.40 to 
identify and assure the availability of mission-critical 
infrastructure.
    The committee notes with concern a recent study that found 
that critical national missions are ``at an unacceptably high 
risk of extended outage from failure of the [power] grid and 
other critical national infrastructure.'' Although public works 
infrastructure, including power supply, is being analyzed as a 
part of DCIP, the committee is concerned that little progress 
has been made.
    In addition, the committee is concerned that the Department 
has not properly programmed, in the Future Years Defense 
Program, security upgrades at access points and entry gates to 
military installations. These requirements were principally 
generated in response to Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability 
Assessments and impact the level of security for military 
assets and personnel. The committee is also concerned about 
potential limitations in contingency operations related to Tier 
One assets as identified by DODD 3020.40.
    Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
include installation security- and threat reduction-related 
military construction in the near term program and budgeting 
decisions, particularly as it relates to gates and access 
points. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
complete an assessment of Tier One assets and the corrective 
action required to provide assured power and secure and 
maintain redundancy of critical assets. This report shall be 
submitted to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 
2009.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General to 
continue its review of the critical infrastructure program and 
assess the Department's compliance with DODD 3020.40 and submit 
a report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 
2009.

                         Facilities Sustainment

    The committee is convinced that the Department of Defense's 
decision to pursue standardized models for facilities 
sustainment and recapitalization will provide consistent 
service throughout the Department. The committee is also 
encouraged that the Department plans to expand this effort to 
include installation support services and supports 
standardization of service metrics. However, the committee is 
concerned about several issues highlighted by a recent 
Government Accountability Office report entitled ``Continued 
Management Attention is Needed to Support Installation 
Facilities and Operations'' (GAO-08-502). In this report, the 
Government Accountability Office concluded that the facilities 
sustainment model provides a consistent and reasonable 
framework for preparing estimates of the Department's annual 
facility sustainment funding requirements. However, the 
Government Accountability Office also concluded that accuracy 
and supportability issues with the model's inputs have affected 
the reliability of the model's estimates.
    The committee believes that the inputs to the model are 
critical elements to support a reliable, standardized process 
and urges the Department to take prompt action to correct 
identified deficiencies. The committee also believes that the 
Department needs to complete a comprehensive review of the 
inputs to the model, such as the verification of each real 
property inventory record at least once every five years as 
currently dictated in the Department's directives, and better 
assess the specialized maintenance needs for its historic 
facilities and monuments.
    The committee is also concerned that the allocation of 
facility sustainment funds within the Department may not be 
consistent with requirements as determined by the sustainment 
model; an appropriate mechanism for identifying and funding 
deferred facility sustainment needs may not exist; the 
Departments lacks of a comprehensive approach to real property 
determinations of historic and monumental buildings, 
specifically including service academies and post secondary 
education facilities such as the Navy Post Graduate School; and 
the delivery of installation support services may not be 
consistent across the joint bases developed by the 2005 Base 
Closure and Realignment round. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Comptroller General to assess the following: the models' 
implementation at the installation level; the Department's 
sustainment funding allocation process ensures installations 
receive funds to adequately support its facilities; and the 
status of the Department's efforts to ensure delivery of 
adequate support services at joint bases. The Comptroller 
General shall report the results of its review to the 
congressional defense committees by March 30, 2009.

                   Formerly Used Defense Sites Review

    The committee remains concerned that Formerly Used Defense 
Sites (FUDS) receive lower priority for environmental 
remediation funding than active and Base Closure and 
Realignment installations and is concerned about the long-term 
consequences of these investment decisions. In the Defense 
Environmental Programs Report to Congress for fiscal year 2007, 
the Department identified over $16.0 billion of required 
remediation to support these FUDS activities. At many sites, 
the characterization of the environmental remediation required 
at the FUDS sites has yet to be fully completed. For example, 
the former Almaden Air Force Station, Santa Clara County, 
California, has yet to be fully characterized, and the extent 
of contamination on this property that was conveyed over 25 
years ago is unknown. The committee urges the Secretary of 
Defense to take steps to ensure the full characterization of 
all the FUDS locations, like the former Almaden Air Force 
Station.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to review the 
FUDS program and submit to the congressional defense committees 
a report, by March 1, 2009, assessing the following:
          (1) Steps that the Department is taking to mitigate 
        overall contamination at FUDS locations;
          (2) Army Corps of Engineers' management of emerging 
        contaminants at FUDS locations;
          (3) Army Corps of Engineers' program management 
        ability and organizational construct to manage the FUDS 
        program including sponsorship for budget preparation 
        requirements; and
          (4) Relationship of environmental regulators and the 
        Army Corps of Engineers.

                Guam Integrated Water Management System

    The committee recognizes the need for efficient management, 
utilization, and conservation of water resources for the 
civilian and military communities on Guam. For several years, 
the committee has encouraged the secretaries of the military 
departments to privatize utility systems where feasible. The 
committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to work 
collaboratively with the Government of Guam for a comprehensive 
and integrated water supply and wastewater system on Guam. To 
achieve this goal, the committee urges the exploration of a 
partnership to manage the distribution and supply of potable 
water on a more efficient basis on Guam.

              Joint Land Use Study at Shaw Air Force Base

    The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
conducting a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) funded by the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense to assess, among other things, 
current and future encroachment threats to U.S. military 
installations and operating spaces. The committee expects that, 
in conducting the JLUS, the Department will fully consider the 
implications of the services' evolving roles, missions, and 
material requirements as well as its respective and collective 
impacts upon each of the installations and operating spaces 
under review. The committee also expects that the Department 
will fully consider the realized effects and future 
implications of implementing the Base Closure and Realignment 
recommendations of 2005 while conducting the JLUS proceedings. 
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to conduct and 
conclude its JLUS proceedings at Shaw Air Force Base, South 
Carolina, as expeditiously as possible, and it encourages the 
Secretary of Defense to conclude the JLUS before December 31, 
2008.

                 Military Spouse and Families Memorial

    The committee is aware of the widespread bipartisan support 
in the 110th Congress for the yet to be passed H.R. 3026, the 
Military Spouses Memorial Act of 2007, and recognizes that a 
memorial honoring our nation's military spouses and families is 
both fitting and proper. The committee is also aware that the 
bill does not presently conform to the provisions of the 
Commemorative Works Act of 1986 (Public Law 102-216), leading 
to a recent decision by the National Capitol Planning 
Commission to deny the siting of such a memorial in the 
District of Columbia. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report, by January 1, 2009, assessing defense installations in 
the National Capital Area, including Navy Annex and Fort Myer, 
which may be available to site this important memorial.

        Recycled Materials for Road Construction and other Uses

    The committee supports the determined efforts of the 
construction industry to recycle road materials and incorporate 
household recycled wastes into asphalt aggregate and base 
course applications. However, the committee is concerned about 
the uneven use of the construction industry's technique across 
the United States. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report, by March 1, 2009, with: an industry assessment by state 
and territory of using recycled materials for road 
construction; proposed modifications to the existing paving 
construction specifications that incorporate expanded recycling 
options; and overall opportunities to expand demand-side 
recycling options.

                   Safe Housing for Military Families

    The committee was briefed on the Home Safety Month program 
developed by the Home Safety Council and understands that this 
program could be effective in preventing home-related injuries. 
The committee recommends that a program similar to the Home 
Safety Month program be adopted by the Military Family Housing 
Public Private partners in their management of over 150,000 
family housing units.

                        Training Range Expansion

    The committee understands that modern weapons systems being 
fielded by each of the military services require even larger, 
more extensive range facilities than the military departments 
now have at their disposal. The use of current range facilities 
is increasingly limited by growing considerations of urban 
encroachment, endangered species mitigation, and air and 
maritime traffic congestion. The Army alone said it needs an 
additional 5,000,000 acres of training space within the United 
States, a goal the committee believes is not attainable. 
However, the committee believes the secretaries of the military 
departments should continue to aggressively pursue 
opportunities to acquire additional training land, while 
working closely with local communities. In general, the 
committee strongly discourages the use of condemnation or 
eminent domain, and believes this tool should be used as 
sparingly as possible. The committee applauds the Department's 
efforts to manage existing ranges in a sustainable manner, but 
is dismayed to note the significant encroachment reported, 
particularly at large land maneuver ranges. The committee is 
concerned about the future availability of ranges sufficiently 
large and unencumbered enough for realistic training, and 
encourages the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the 
military departments to continue to manage existing ranges 
carefully and to seek creative ways to acquire new training 
ranges in cooperation with state and local officials.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes


  Section 2801--Incorporation of Principles of Sustainable Design in 
 Documents Submitted as Part of Proposed Military Construction Projects

    This section would require the Department of Defense to 
incorporate sustainable design concepts and life cycle analysis 
into a review of options that would be submitted with the 
annual budget documents.
    The committee continues to support construction and 
contracting innovations that the construction industry is 
pursuing, and believes accelerated contracting techniques 
should be pursued to the maximum extent possible. These 
techniques include construction management at-risk, limitations 
to the performance and payment bonds at large construction 
projects, and the continued development of alternative 
construction methods like modular construction. The Department 
should also incorporate construction materials that may require 
additional funds during construction, but are more cost 
effective over the life cycle of a facility. The committee 
urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to pursue life 
cycle, cost effective materials and procedures and include a 
review of these alternatives when finalizing life cycle 
decisions for construction.

 Section 2802--Extension of Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance 
       Funds for Construction Projects Outside the United States

    This section would extend the current use of operations and 
maintenance funds toward military construction requirements, 
outside the United States, for one year.

 Section 2803--Revision of Maximum Lease Amount Applicable to Certain 
 Domestic Army Family Housing Leases to Reflect Previously Made Annual 
                         Adjustments in Amount

    This section would amend the maximum lease amount available 
to Army Family House Leases from $18,620 per unit to $35,000 
per unit.

 Section 2804--Use of Military Family Housing Constructed Under Build 
        and Lease Authority to House Members without Dependents

    This section would amend the military family housing build 
and lease authority and allow service members without 
dependants to be assigned to those quarters. Furthermore, this 
authority would also allow the Department of Defense to convert 
the family housing units, previously provided by the build to 
lease authority, to military unaccompanied housing. Finally, 
the secretary concerned would be required to provide notice to 
the congressional defense committees prior to using the 
conversion authority.

  Section 2805--Lease of Military Family Housing to the Secretary of 
                      Defense for Use as Residence

    This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to lease 
military family housing in the National Capital Region. The 
rental rate would be determined by the higher of the following 
two alternatives:
          (1) Fair market value offset by the security and 
        infrastructure savings associated with housing the 
        Secretary of Defense on a military installation; or
          (2) 105 percent of the monthly rate for basic 
        allowance for housing of the pay grade of an O-10, with 
        dependents.

   Section 2806--Repeal of Reporting Requirement in Connection with 
                 Installation Vulnerability Assessments

    This section would repeal the current reporting 
requirements associated with installation vulnerability 
assessments.

Section 2807--Modification of Alternative Authority for Acquisition and 
                    Improvement of Military Housing

    This section would modify the existing privatization 
authorities and provide better real estate visibility and 
management of conveyance executed with this authority. 
Specifically, it would: require the Department of Defense to 
partner with the family housing developer; require 100 percent 
performance and payment bonds; require competition for 
conveyance actions; repeal the authority to assign service 
members to privatized family housing; and require additional 
reporting associated with general and flag officer quarters.

 Section 2808--Report on Capturing Housing Privatization Best Practices

    This section would amend section 2884(b) of title 10, 
United States Code, and require an additional reporting element 
to annual reporting requirements. Specifically, the Secretary 
of Defense would submit to the congressional defense committees 
a report on best business practices for the execution of 
housing privatization initiatives.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


 Section 2811--Clarification of Exceptions to Congressional Reporting 
          Requirements for Certain Real Property Transactions

    This section would clarify reporting requirements 
associated with civil works and other real estate transactions.

   Section 2812--Authority to Lease Non-Excess Property of Military 
                    Departments and Defense Agencies

    This section would modify the Department of Defense's 
leasing authority and restrict certain uses of that authority. 
Specifically, the Department would be limited to leases less 
than 50 years, would be limited in the types of lease back 
agreements that could be entered, and would be limited on the 
use of proceeds derived from leases. Also, the secretaries 
concerned would be required to determine that property is not 
excess and would be required to provide expanded notifications 
to the congressional defense committees during the course of 
the lease review process. Finally, the secretary would be 
required to submit a report 30 days before the secretary enters 
into a lease that describes the agreement reached with the 
local municipality on taxation issues and further describes the 
proposed lessee payment.

   Section 2813--Modification of Utility System Conveyance Authority

    This section would modify the existing utility 
privatization authorities and provide the secretary concerned 
the discretion to convey additional, discrete utility elements 
without competition to an existing utility privatization 
interest, if certain criteria are met.

 Section 2814--Permanent Authority to Purchase Municipal Services for 
              Military Installations in the United States

    This section would authorize the Department of Defense to 
acquire certain municipal services to support installation 
requirements.

                   Section 2815--Defense Access Roads

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a needs assessment to assess the magnitude of the 
transportation improvement required when the Secretary of 
Defense has concluded that a Department of Defense action has 
caused a significant transportation impact.

 Section 2816--Protecting Private Property Rights during Department of 
                       Defense Land Acquisitions

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to make 
every reasonable effort to acquire real property expeditiously 
by negotiation. The Secretary of Defense shall not be precluded 
from acquiring real property from willing sellers.

           Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Guam Realignment


      Section 2821--Guam Defense Policy Review Initiative Account

    This section would establish the Guam Defense Policy Review 
Account for purposes of centralizing account management for 
issues related to the realignment of military installations on 
Guam and the relocation of military personnel on Guam. 
Furthermore, not later that February 15 of every year, the 
Department shall submit a report to Congress that describes the 
military construction projects related to the realignment of 
military installations and the relocation of military personnel 
on Guam.

   Section 2822--Sense of Congress regarding Use of Special Purpose 
       Entities for Military Housing Related to Guam Realignment

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Special Purpose Entities proposed to support military family 
members in Guam should closely follow the model and standards 
associated with the privatized family housing initiative 
authorized by subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United 
States Code. Furthermore, it would express the sense of 
Congress that utility funding associated with the Special 
Purpose Entity should be consolidated with the civilian 
infrastructure to maximize effectiveness of the overall system.

  Section 2823--Sense of Congress Regarding Federal Assistance to Guam

    This section would express the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Interagency 
Group on Insular Affairs, should enter into a memorandum of 
understanding with the Government of Guam to identify civilian 
infrastructure associated with the capabilities expansion on 
Guam.

    Section 2824--Comptroller General Report Regarding Interagency 
                Requirements Related to Guam Realignment

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
submit a report on the status of interagency coordination 
related to the realignment of military forces on Guam.

   Section 2825--Energy and Environmental Design Initiatives in Guam 
                Military Construction and Installations

    This section would require that facilities constructed to 
support the military expansion at Guam have energy efficiencies 
and energy conservation measures incorporated into the overall 
design process. Specifically, this section would require that 
military construction projects on Guam incorporate Leadership 
in Energy and Environmental Design to achieve not less than the 
U.S. Green Building Council silver standard for new 
construction.

Section 2826--Department of Defense Inspector General Report Regarding 
                            Guam Realignment

    This section would require the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress within 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act on the efforts of 
the Inspector General to address potential waste and fraud 
associated with the realignment of military forces on Guam.

 Section 2827--Eligibility of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
    Islands for Military Base Reuse Studies and Community Planning 
                               Assistance

    This section would authorize the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands to be eligible to receive funds for 
military base reuse studies and community planning assistance.

            Section 2828--Prevailing Wage Applicable to Guam

    This section would require military construction contracts 
to comply with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United 
States Code, and would require a construction wage 
determination to be applied in all military construction 
contracts in Guam.

                      Subtitle D--Energy Security


 Section 2841--Certification of Enhanced Use Leases for Energy-Related 
                                Projects

    This section would require that, if a proposed enhanced use 
lease involves a project related to energy production, and the 
term of the lease exceeds 20 years, the secretary of a military 
department may not enter into the lease until 30 days after the 
Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense 
committees that the lease is consistent with the Department of 
Defense energy performance goals and plan required by section 
2911 of title 10, United States Code.

  Section 2842--Annual Report on Department of Defense Installations 
                           Energy Management

    This section would amend section 2925(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to 
report on efforts taken to meet new energy goals set forth in 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 
110-140) and on efforts to meet certification requirements for 
sustainable green-building standards for construction and major 
renovations.

                      Subtitle E--Land Conveyances


   Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Former Naval Air Station, Alameda, 
                               California

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey the Former Naval Air Station, California, to the Alameda 
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, except those lands 
designated as public benefit conveyances and certain other 
surplus lands.

   Section 2852--Land Conveyance, Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply Point, 
                          Norwalk, California

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to convey 10 acres at the Norwalk Defense Fuel Supply Point to 
the City of Norwalk, California, for recreational purposes.

 Section 2853--Land Conveyance, Former Naval Station, Treasure Island, 
                               California

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey the former Naval Station Treasure Island, California, to 
the Treasure Island redevelopment authority. Consideration for 
this transfer would be provided by the redevelopment 
authority's assuming at lease one of the following: the 
remediation of known environmental contamination, or by the 
Secretary of the Navy receiving a share of the revenues.

 Section 2854--Condition on Lease Involving Naval Air Station, Barbers 
                             Point, Hawaii

    This section would require the Secretary of the Navy and 
Ford Island Properties/Hunt Development to enter into a 
memorandum of understanding with the Hawaii Community 
Development Authority to ensure that the development plan for 
the real property conforms to the final Kalaeloa Master Plan.

  Section 2855--Land Conveyance, Sergeant First Class M.L. Downs Army 
                   Reserve Center, Springfield, Ohio

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey the Sergeant First Class M.L. Downs Army Reserve Center, 
Springfield, Ohio to the City of Springfield, Ohio for use for 
municipal government services.

    Section 2856--Land Conveyance, John Sevier Range, Knox County, 
                               Tennessee

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey 124 acres known as the John Sevier Range in Knox County, 
Tennessee, to the State of Tennessee for use as a public firing 
range and associated recreational activities.

  Section 2857--Land Conveyance, Bureau of Land Management Land, Camp 
                             Williams, Utah

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
to convey 431 acres to the State of Utah for military use by 
the Utah National Guard at Camp Williams, Utah.

   Section 2858--Land Conveyance, Army Property, Camp Williams, Utah

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey 608 acres and 308 acres, respectively, acres to the 
State of Utah for military use by the Utah National Guard at 
Camp Williams, Utah.

   Section 2859--Extension of Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail 
                     through Fort Belvoir, Virginia

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
enter into a revocable at will easement with the Secretary of 
the Interior to provide land along the perimeter of Fort 
Belvoir, Virginia, to be used to extend the Potomac Heritage 
National Scenic Trail.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Section 2871--Revised Deadline for Transfer of Arlington Naval Annex to 
                      Arlington National Cemetery

    This section would delay the proposed transfer of the 
Arlington Naval Annex to the Arlington National Cemetery by one 
year. This delay would allow the Department of Defense the 
opportunity to better manage tenants affected by Base Closure 
and Realignment, provide savings, and ensure the timely site 
development for future use by the Arlington National Cemetery.

  Section 2872--Decontamination and Use of Former Bombardment Area on 
                           Island of Culebra

    This section would amend the Military Construction 
Authorization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-166) and remove 
restrictions to environmental remediation on the Island of 
Culebra that were incorporated to protect the former 
bombardment area on the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico, from 
further development.

     Section 2873--Acceptance and Use of Gifts for Construction of 
Additional Building at National Museum of the United States Air Force, 
                 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to accept a gift from the Air Force Museum Foundation that 
would allow construction of the fourth building for the 
National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright 
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

  Section 2874--Establishment of Memorial to American Rangers at Fort 
                           Belvoir, Virginia

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
permit the American Ranger Memorial Association, Inc., to 
establish and maintain a memorial, at a suitable location at 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

 Section 2875--Lease Involving Pier on Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval 
                              Base, Hawaii

    This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into a two year lease with the USS Missouri Memorial 
Association to use the pier Foxtrot Five on Ford Island, 
Hawaii.

     Section 2876--Naming of Health Facility, Fort Rucker, Alabama

    This section would require the health facility located at 
301 Andrews Avenue at Fort Rucker, Alabama, to be known as the 
``Lyster Army/VA Health Clinic.''

TITLE XXIX--ADDITIONAL WAR-RELATED AND EMERGENCY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 
                  AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                SUMMARY

    Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) authorized $2,158,741,000 
in emergency authorization of appropriations. Since enactment 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 
the Department transmitted a budget modification. The committee 
recommends an additional authorization of appropriation of 
$1,182,489,000 to support war-related and emergency military 
construction requirements.


                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


    Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize war-related military 
construction projects for the Army. The authorized amounts are 
listed on an installation-by-installations basis.

    Section 2902--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize war-related military 
construction projects for the Navy. The authorized amounts are 
listed on an installation-by-installations basis.

 Section 2903--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize war-related military 
construction projects for the Air Force. The authorized amounts 
are listed on an installation-by-installations basis.

    Section 2904--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize war-related military 
construction projects for the defense agencies. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installations basis.

 Section 2905--Termination of Authority to Carry out Fiscal Year 2008 
          Army Projects for which Funds Were not Appropriated

    This section would repeal the project authorizations for 
military construction projects authorized in fiscal year 2008 
for which no funds were appropriated.

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

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $16.0 billion for atomic 
energy defense activities. Of this amount, $9.1 billion is for 
the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
and $6.9 billion is for environmental and other defense 
activities. The committee recommends $16.2 billion, an increase 
of $232.7 million to the budget request.


                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST


                National Nuclear Security Administration


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $9.1 billion for the programs 
of the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 
2009. The committee recommends $9.3 billion, an increase of 
$204.7 million to the budget request.

                           Weapons Activities


Assessment of life extension programs

    In February 2008, the committee wrote to the Administrator 
of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and 
requested that he direct the JASON scientific advisory panel to 
undertake a technical review of warhead life extension programs 
(LEP) analogous to their 2007 review of the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. On March 17, 2008, the 
Administrator responded that NNSA would direct the JASON panel 
to conduct such a study, for which planning would commence 
later this year.
    The committee welcomes this analysis, and believes a fuller 
understanding of the risks, uncertainties, and challenges 
associated with the warhead life extension programs will enable 
a more robust comparison between the current program of record 
and any proposed modifications or alternatives, including the 
RRW proposal.
    The committee believes the JASON review should encompass a 
broad range of options, including some not included in previous 
LEPs. The committee therefore encourages the Administrator of 
the NNSA to prepare an assessment of the expected technical and 
financial costs and benefits of expanding the scope of life 
extension programs, to include reuse of legacy primary and 
secondary components. The committee believes such an assessment 
should inform and be part of the JASON review.

Reliable Replacement Warhead

    The budget request contained $10.0 million within Directed 
Stockpile Work for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) 
program.
    The committee notes that the budget does not provide 
sufficient funds to complete the Phase 2a design and cost study 
for RRW. Instead, the request provides modest funding to 
``address questions raised by the JASON review of RRW 
feasibility study activities.'' The committee notes that funds 
are also requested elsewhere in the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) budget, within Advanced Certification and 
Enhanced Surety, to support further examination of 
certification issues raised by the RRW proposal.
    The committee sees value in research focused on the 
certification and stewardship issues raised not only by the RRW 
proposal, but also by the annual assessment process and 
certification issues raised by planned warhead life extension 
programs. Such research is critical to sustaining and 
modernizing the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), whether or 
not the RRW program proceeds.
    The committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $10.0 
million, for the Reliable Replacement Warhead within Directed 
Stockpile Work. Instead, the committee recommends an additional 
$10.0 million within Advanced Certification for research to 
address questions raised by the JASON review of RRW, and to 
support evaluation of other high priority SSP challenges, 
including certification of weapons using existing pits or 
primaries, weapons subject to life extension programs, and 
weapons modified to include advanced surety and safety 
features.

Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility

    The budget request contained $32.5 million for the Pit 
Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF)--Other Project Costs 
within Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition, an increase of 
$24.9 million above the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level.
    The committee supports construction of the PDCF, but finds 
the justification for the proposed increase insufficient.
    The committee recommends $25.0 million, a decrease of $7.5 
million, for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility--Other 
Project Costs.

Stockpile Services

            Research and Development Support
    The budget request contained $36.2 million for Research and 
Development Support within Stockpile Services.
    The committee is supportive of these activities, but finds 
insufficient grounds for the proposed increase over the fiscal 
year 2008 appropriated level.
    The committee recommends $32.7 million, a decrease of $3.5 
million from the request.
            Research and Development Certification and Safety
    The budget request contained $193.4 million for Research 
and Development Certification and Safety within Stockpile 
Services.
    The committee supports the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's efforts to transform the existing nuclear 
weapons complex into a more modern and responsive 
infrastructure. The committee notes that, in addition to 
infrastructure modernization, the scientific tools that sustain 
the Stockpile Stewardship Program also must be modernized over 
time. The committee understands, for example, that there is the 
potential to develop hydro-dynamic test capabilities, which 
currently require large, expensive facilities, at a scale that 
would not require new facilities. Instead, such ``facility 
free'' hydro-dynamic test capabilities would be small enough to 
be portable.
    The committee recommends $198.4 million in Research and 
Development Certification and Safety, an increase of $5.0 
million specifically for research into the potential for 
``facility free'' hydro-dynamic test capabilities.
            Pit Manufacturing and Pit Manufacturing Capability
    The budget request contained $145.3 million for Pit 
Manufacturing and $53.6 million for the Pit Manufacturing 
Capability, both within Stockpile Services. Each sub-program is 
defined as aiming to ``establish the capability to manufacture 
pits other than the W88 pit,'' and to ``improve manufacturing 
processes used to manufacture all pit types.'' The committee 
notes redundancy in the two efforts, and urges the National 
Nuclear Security Administration to examine the potential for 
combining these into one activity.
    The committee recommends $110.3 million for Pit 
Manufacturing, a reduction of $35.0 million from the request, 
and $38.6 million in Pit Manufacturing Capability, a reduction 
of $15.0 million from the request.

Advanced Certification

    The budget request contained $20.0 million for Advanced 
Certification, a program begun in fiscal year 2008 to fund 
activities specifically targeting the challenges associated 
with the assessment and certification of the nation's aging 
nuclear weapons.
    The committee supports such research, and regards it as 
crucial to the sustainment and modernization of the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program. In particular, the committee regards the 
Advanced Certification activity as integral to advancing new 
approaches to Stockpile Stewardship, including pit or primary 
reuse options in the life extension programs.
    The committee recommends $30.0 million for Advanced 
Certification, an increase of $10.0 million above the request. 
The committee recommends the additional funds for research to 
address questions raised by the JASON review of RRW, and to 
support evaluation of other high priority SSP challenges, 
including certification of weapons using existing pits or 
primaries, weapons subject to life extension programs, and 
weapons modified to include advanced surety and safety 
features.

Engineering Campaign

            Enhanced Surety
    The budget request contained $35.6 million for Enhanced 
Surety within the Engineering Campaign. According to the 
request, the Enhanced Surety sub-program is designed to 
``develop options for weapon system designers during stockpile 
alterations, modifications, and transformations.'' The effort 
further addresses ``other refurbishments and stockpile 
improvement projects needed to meet future Department of 
Defense requirements.''
    The committee supports such activities, but understands 
that the request is insufficient to support analysis of certain 
options for augmenting the surety of existing legacy stockpile 
systems, including the surety of the B61 warhead.
    The committee recommends $40.6 million for Enhanced Surety, 
an increase of $5.0 million above the request, for research 
into emerging options for increasing the surety of existing 
weapons systems, including the B61 warhead.
            Enhanced Surveillance
    The budget request contained $68.2 million for Enhanced 
Surveillance within the Engineering Campaign. This sub-program 
is designed to develop models and other technologies necessary 
for early identification and assessment of stockpile aging 
issues.
    The committee supports this activity, but understands that 
the request does not fully support research into emerging 
technologies for embedded surveillance. The committee notes the 
promise in such technologies.
    The committee recommends $71.2 million for Enhanced 
Surveillance, an increase of $3.0 million over the request, for 
research into embedded surveillance.

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign

    The budget request contained $421.2 million for the 
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, 
including $180.4 million for facility operations and target 
production.
    The committee supports the National Ignition Campaign 
(NIC), and believes the successful execution of this campaign 
is critical to the success of the Stockpile Stewardship 
Program. The committee understands the fiscal year 2009 request 
does not fully fund the National Ignition Campaign Baseline 
Execution Plan, and further understands that additional risk 
reduction resources are needed to meet NIC milestones.
    The committee recommends $195.0 million, an increase of 
$14.6 million, for facility operations and target production, 
of which $4.6 million is for fully funding the National 
Ignition Campaign Baseline Execution Plan, and $10.0 million is 
for supporting enhanced target production and risk reduction 
activities.

Readiness Campaign--Tritium Readiness

    The budget request contained $82.3 million for Tritium 
Readiness sub-program within the Readiness Campaign.
    The committee supports Tritium Readiness activities, but 
understands that the sub-program maintains uncosted, 
uncommitted balances of more than $25.0 million above the 
Department of Energy established threshold. The committee is 
concerned that such funds reflect an imbalance between Tritium 
Readiness resources and the sub-program scope of work.
    The committee recommends $72.3 million, a decrease of $10.0 
million, for Tritium Readiness in the Readiness Campaign.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities

            Operations of Facilities--Lawrence Livermore National 
                    Laboratory
    The budget request contained $85.2 million for operations 
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) within 
Readiness and Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of 
Facilities.
    The committee notes the request is $4.2 million below the 
fiscal year 2008 level. The committee also understands the 
request is insufficient to fully support removal of Category 1 
and Category 2 special nuclear material from LLNL. The 
committee notes such removal is an important element of the 
Complex Transformation effort.
    The committee recommends $95.2 million for LLNL Operations 
of Facilities, an increase of $10.0 million above the request, 
to support reduction and removal of special nuclear materials 
from LLNL.
            Operations of Facilities--Pantex Plant
    The budget request contained $104.4 million for operations 
at the Pantex Plant within Readiness and Technical Base and 
Facilities--Operations of Facilities.
    The committee is concerned that the request is $8.5 million 
below the fiscal year 2008 level at a time when the volume of 
work at Pantex is not expected to diminish. The committee also 
understands the request is insufficient to support planned 
fiscal year 2009 operations at the Pantex Plant.
    The committee recommends $114.4 million for Pantex Plant 
Operations of Facilities, an increase of $10.0 million above 
the request.
            Operations of Facilities--Y-12
    The budget request contained $216.9 million for operations 
at the Y-12 National Security Complex within Readiness and 
Technical Base and Facilities--Operations of Facilities.
    The committee notes that while maintenance needs at the Y-
12 complex are growing, the request is more than $7.0 million 
below the fiscal year 2008 funded level. The committee also 
understands that with additional resources, Y-12 could 
accelerate the transfer of material from existing facilities 
into the new Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility 
(HEUMF), thereby reducing the security costs of securing those 
materials prior to their transfer to the HEUMF.
    The committee recommends $223.9 million, an increase of 
$7.0 million above the request. Of the increase, the committee 
recommends $5.0 million to support maintenance of facilities at 
the Y-12 National Security Complex, and $2.0 million to support 
the relocation of containers and material during the transition 
into the HEUMF at the Y-12 National Security Complex.

National Nuclear Security Administration nuclear weapons transport

    The committee believes the increased use of air 
transportation of nuclear weapons by the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) merits consideration. The Office 
of Secure Transportation (OST) within the NNSA currently 
transports nuclear weapons between certain NNSA and Department 
of Defense facilities for activities such as maintenance, 
surveillance, disassembly, and the exchange of limited life 
components.
    The committee, therefore, directs the Administrator of the 
NNSA and the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with 
the Nuclear Weapons Council, to conduct a feasibility study of 
transporting nuclear weapons, components, and materials by 
aircraft. This study should evaluate options for increasing the 
use of air transportation between sites and facilities, while 
taking into account all safety and security concerns. It should 
assess the need for air assets as a part of OST and the role, 
schedule, and priority of these missions supportable by air 
transportation assets from the NNSA and the Air Force 
consistent with other requirements. The study should compare 
the safety and security costs, risks, and benefits associated 
with both air and ground transportation of nuclear weapons, 
components, and materials to and from all NNSA, Air Force, and 
Navy facilities.
    The committee recognizes that much of the information 
necessary for inclusion in such a report will be classified. 
Therefore, the committee directs that a classified report with 
an unclassified executive summary be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees by December 31, 2008.

National Nuclear Technical Forensics

    The budget request contained $221.9 million for Nuclear 
Weapons Incident Response, including $12.9 million for National 
Technical Nuclear Forensics (NTNF).
    The committee notes that the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Physical Society 
(APS) recently released a report, ``Nuclear Forensics: Role, 
State of the Art, and Program Needs.'' The committee notes that 
the AAAS-APS report recommended accelerated training for 
personnel trained in disciplines relating to nuclear forensics, 
including graduate scholarship and fellowship programs to 
produce three to four new Ph.D.s per year in relevant 
disciplines. The AAAS-APS report also recommended upgrading 
equipment currently available to the Department of Energy 
national laboratories which support the NTNF.
    The committee recommends $226.9 million for Nuclear Weapons 
Incident Response, including $17.9 million in NTNF, an increase 
of $5.0 million, to support fellowships for disciplines 
critical to support the mission of the National Technical 
Nuclear Forensics effort and to upgrade and modernize 
laboratory equipment.

Defense Nuclear Security--Operations and Maintenance--Physical Security 
        systems--Y-12

    The budget request contained $690.2 million for Operations 
and Maintenance, including $77.2 million for Physical Security 
Systems, within Defense Nuclear Security.
    The committee recommends $693.2 million, including $80.2 
million for Physical Security Systems, an increase of $3.0 
million, to implement physical security upgrades and enable 
compliance with the Design Basis Threat at the Y-12 National 
Security Complex.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

    The budget request contained $1.2 billion for Department of 
Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation programs.
    The committee fully supports the goals of NNSA's 
nonproliferation programs and continues to believe that such 
programs are critical to U.S. national security and must be a 
top national security priority. In the committee report (H. 
Rept. 110-146) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the committee expressed concern that 
a lack of effective policy guidance and leadership, as well as 
programmatic and funding constraints, have limited the progress 
of NNSA and other nonproliferation programs in recent years. 
The committee further noted that although NNSA nonproliferation 
programs have made significant progress over the last 15 years, 
much remains to be done, and emphasized that there must be a 
strong national commitment to reinvigorate these programs.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) addressed these concerns by increasing 
funding for NNSA nonproliferation programs by $235.0 million 
above the budget request for fiscal year 2008. Public Law 110-
181 also: required a report by the President on nuclear 
terrorism prevention; required reports by the Secretary of 
Energy on strengthening and expanding the NNSA International 
Radiological Threat Reduction and NNSA International Nuclear 
Materials Protection and Cooperation programs; and included 
other provisions to ensure that wherever possible, NNSA 
nonproliferation programs address threats involving nuclear and 
radiological weapons and weapons-related materials, 
technologies, and expertise.
    The committee also notes that the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 
110-53), passed in the 110th Congress by both the House and 
Senate as H.R. 1 and commonly known as ``the 9/11 bill,'' 
included a number of provisions and authorized funding to 
accelerate, strengthen, and expand NNSA nonproliferation 
programs. Provisions include the establishment of both a 
presidential coordinator and a congressional-executive 
commission on the prevention of weapons of mass destruction 
proliferation and terrorism.
    The committee believes that there are additional 
opportunities for NNSA nonproliferation programs to address the 
wide variety of global threats arising from the proliferation 
of nuclear and radiological weapons and weapons-related 
materials, technologies, and expertise. The committee believes 
NNSA nonproliferation programs would continue to benefit from 
increased funding to address such threats.
    The committee recognizes and appreciates recent actions by 
NNSA to eliminate impediments to timely obligating and 
executing authorized and appropriated funds for NNSA 
nonproliferation programs. Such actions have enabled NNSA to 
achieve a level of uncommitted uncosted balances for most NNSA 
nonproliferation programs that is below the acceptable levels 
established by NNSA in close coordination with the Government 
Accountability Office. The committee urges NNSA to continue its 
efforts to eliminate any remaining impediments to timely 
obligating and executing funds for NNSA nonproliferation 
programs. The committee further expects that any additional 
funds that it recommends for NNSA nonproliferation programs 
under this Act will be obligated and executed in a timely 
manner. The committee further urges NNSA nonproliferation 
programs to maintain a particular focus on securing nuclear and 
radiological weapons and weapons-related materials and 
technologies at the source wherever possible.
    The committee recommends $1.5 billion, an increase of 
$208.1 million. This includes an increase of $215.0 million for 
NNSA nonproliferation programs and a decrease of $6.9 million 
for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In addition, 
elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million for the Office of the Administrator for Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program direction.

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development

    The budget request contained $275.1 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 U.S. 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 $275.1 million, the amount of the 
budget request.
            Radiation detection technology
    The committee encourages 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 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 continues to support the role of the 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.

Nonproliferation and International Security

    The budget request contained $140.5 million for 
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS). The 
committee fully supports the goals of the NIS program, although 
notes its concern below about the Global Nuclear Energy 
Partnership (GNEP).
    The committee recommends $128.6 million for NIS reflecting 
a decrease of $6.9 million from GNEP, and a transfer of $5.0 
million from Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention to 
high-priority activities within International Nuclear Materials 
Protection and Cooperation.
            Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
    The budget request contained $6.9 million for Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) activities from within 
Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS).
    The committee notes that since fiscal year 2006, the 
Department of Energy has funded a portion of the Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership from within various National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
program lines. NNSA has characterized GNEP, which promotes the 
use of nuclear energy throughout the world, as an important 
nonproliferation initiative.
    The committee finds NNSA's proposed nonproliferation 
arguments for GNEP unpersuasive and is not convinced that GNEP 
will achieve its stated nonproliferation objectives. Rather, 
the committee is concerned about proliferation risks associated 
with GNEP. For these reasons, the committee does not support 
any funding for GNEP activities from within any NNSA Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program line.
    The committee recommends none of the funding in the budget 
request for GNEP from within NIS, a decrease of $6.9 million.
            Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
    The budget request contained $23.8 million for Global 
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP) from within 
Nonproliferation and International Security.
    The committee has been conducting vigorous oversight on the 
GIPP program and the program's funding of Russian institutes, 
which are involved with separate work on nuclear projects in 
the Islamic Republic of Iran. The committee appreciates the 
information provided by the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) on the GIPP program to date and 
recognizes the important nonproliferation objectives of the 
program.
    The committee encourages NNSA to continue strengthening the 
management and implementation of the GIPP program as necessary 
to ensure that the program achieves its intended 
nonproliferation objectives and in no way undermines U.S. 
national security interests. The committee expects that NNSA 
will continue to keep it fully informed of significant 
developments involving the program.
    The committee also directs the Secretary of Energy to 
submit to the congressional defense committees, within 120 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, a report on the 
funding for GIPP projects. The report should include: (1) the 
amount of authorized and appropriated funds to be obligated or 
expended for each GIPP project for fiscal year 2009; and (2) 
the purposes for which these amounts will be obligated or 
expended.
    The committee recommends $18.8 million, reflecting a 
transfer of $5.0 million to high-priority activities within 
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation.

International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation

    The budget request contained $429.7 million for 
International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation 
(MPC&A). The committee fully supports the goals of the MPC&A 
program.
    The committee recommends $479.7 million, an increase of 
$50.0 million, as follows: $28.0 million for security upgrades 
to Russian nuclear sites, pursuant to the U.S.-Russia 
Bratislava Nuclear Security Initiative; and $22.0 million to 
secure nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material located 
outside the United States, and to install radiation detection 
equipment at border crossings and a key port of transit to 
deter, detect, and interdict illicit transfers of materials 
that could be used in weapons of mass destruction 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 U.S. 
agency or department, including the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Department of Defense.

Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production

    The budget request contained $141.3 million for Elimination 
of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production (EWGPP). The committee 
fully supports the goals of the EWGPP program.
    The committee recommends $141.3 million for EWGPP, the 
amount of the budget request.

Fissile Materials Disposition

            United States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
    The budget request contained $40.8 million for the United 
States Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program.
    The committee fully supports the goals of the United States 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program. The committee 
notes that historically, funding for the United States Surplus 
Fissile Materials Disposition program included funding for the 
disposition of U.S. surplus weapons-grade plutonium and 
construction of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility 
for use in disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The 
committee views these activities as important to U.S. 
nonproliferation objectives and national security goals.
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-
161), transferred funding for the MOX project to the Department 
of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology 
(NE), and transferred funding for the Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility and Waste Solidification Building projects 
to the National Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons 
Activities program.
    The committee does not believe the transfer of funding for 
disposition of U.S. surplus weapons-grade plutonium, including 
the transfer of funding for the MOX project to NE, was 
necessary. The committee understands, however, that the 
Department of Energy has constructed an arrangement between the 
National Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation (NN) and NE through which NE is able 
to fund the MOX project and NN is able to manage and execute 
the MOX project. The committee notes that the Department of 
Energy General Counsel has judged this arrangement to be 
consistent with the requirements of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-65). The 
committee views this arrangement as an appropriate means of 
balancing the requirements of Public Law 110-161 and Public Law 
106-65.
    The committee supports execution of program activities and 
functions relating to disposition of U.S. surplus weapons-grade 
plutonium and the MOX project, including management and 
direction of the MOX project, from within NN, given the 
important nonproliferation objectives and benefits associated 
with these activities.
    For fiscal year 2009, the Department of Energy has 
requested funding for the MOX project from within Other Defense 
Activities--Nuclear Energy, and requested funding for the Pit 
Disassembly and Conversion Facility and Waste Solidification 
Building projects from within NNSA Weapons Activities--Weapons 
Dismantlement and Disposition. The committee therefore 
authorizes funding for the MOX project under section 3103 of 
this Act, and authorizes funding for the Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility and Waste Solidification Building projects 
under section 3101 of this Act.
    The committee recommends $40.8 million for U.S. Fissile 
Materials Disposition, the amount of the budget request.
            Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
    The budget request contained $1.0 million for the Russian 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program.
    The committee fully supports the goals of the Russian 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, which include 
disposition of the Russian Federation's surplus weapons-grade 
plutonium. The committee further emphasizes the importance of 
nonproliferation programs with Russia, including the Russian 
Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program, to U.S 
nonproliferation objectives and national security goals.
    The committee urges the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) to resolve any outstanding issues with 
Russia relating to the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials 
Disposition program and to move the program forward in a manner 
that is consistent with the program's nonproliferation 
objectives. The committee emphasizes its strong concern with 
the use of fast reactors under the program and expects NNSA to 
pursue a disposition path for Russia's surplus weapons-grade 
plutonium which ensures that any reactors used under the 
program do not produce plutonium and include necessary 
monitoring and inspection controls.
    The committee also notes that the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161), rescinded prior 
fiscal years funds for the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials 
Disposition program. The committee expects NNSA to keep the 
committee fully informed of significant program developments 
and any funding needs to continue program activities during 
fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends $1.0 million, the amount of the 
budget request.

Global Threat Reduction Initiative

    The budget request contained $219.6 million for the Global 
Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). The committee fully 
supports the goals of the GTRI program.
    The committee recommends $389.6 million, an increase of 
$170.0 million, as follows: (1) $50.0 million to accelerate 
conversion of domestic and international research reactors from 
the use of weapons-usable highly-enriched uranium to low-
enriched uranium; (2) $50.0 million to expand and accelerate 
efforts to secure U.S. research and test reactors and sites 
with high-priority radiological sources; (3) $8.0 million to 
accelerate the removal of excess and unwanted radiological 
sources within U.S. borders; (4) $10.0 million to accelerate 
the removal of vulnerable radiological sources located outside 
the United States; (5) $12.0 million to secure vulnerable sites 
with high-priority radiological sources located outside the 
United States; and (6) $40.0 million to remove and dispose of 
vulnerable weapons-usable highly-enriched uranium located 
outside the United States.

Office of the United States Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons 
        of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism

    The committee notes that the Implementing Recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53), passed 
in the 110th Congress by both the House of Representatives and 
the Senate as H.R. 1 and commonly known as ``the 9/11 bill,'' 
established the Office of the United States Coordinator for the 
Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and 
Terrorism, within the Executive Office of the President, and 
required a presidentially-appointed U.S. Coordinator to: (1) 
serve as the advisor to the President on all matters relating 
to the prevention of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 
proliferation and terrorism; (2) formulate a U.S. strategy for 
preventing WMD proliferation and terrorism; (3) lead 
interagency coordination of U.S. efforts to implement the 
strategy and policies; (4) conduct oversight and evaluation of 
accelerated and strengthened implementation of initiatives and 
programs to prevent WMD proliferation and terrorism by 
government agencies; (5) oversee the development of a 
comprehensive and coordinated budget for programs and 
initiatives to prevent WMD proliferation and terrorism; and (6) 
report annually on strategy and policies.
    The committee further notes that Public Law 110-53 
expressed the sense of Congress that the President should 
engage the President of the Russian Federation in a discussion 
on the goals of establishing the Office of the U.S. 
Coordinator, and the importance of strong cooperation between 
the U.S. Coordinator and a senior Russian official to 
coordinate planning and implementation of activities to prevent 
WMD proliferation and terrorism.
    The committee is seriously concerned that the President has 
not yet appointed the U.S. Coordinator or engaged the President 
of Russia in the discussion called for in Public Law 110-53. 
The committee expects the President to appoint the U.S. 
Coordinator at the earliest possible time, and urges the 
President to engage with the President of Russia in the 
discussion called for in Public Law 110-53.

                      Office of the Administrator

    The budget request contained $404.1 million for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of the 
Administrator. The committee is concerned by continued reports 
of limited staff capacity and resources for implementation of 
critical NNSA nonproliferation programs.
    The committee recommends $409.1 million, an increase of 
$5.0 million. The committee intends this increase for NNSA 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program direction to expand 
and strengthen staff capacity, capabilities, and resources 
relating to NNSA nonproliferation programs.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities


                                Overview

    The budget request contained $6.9 billion for environmental 
and other defense activities. The committee recommends $6.9 
billion, an increase of $28.0 million.

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup


Defense Environmental Cleanup program funding

    The budget request contained $5.3 billion for Defense 
Environmental Cleanup, a decrease of $52.1 million from the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2008.
    The committee is encouraged by recent efforts made by the 
Environmental Management (EM) program to improve corporate 
management practices, including independent validation of 
lifecycle costs and schedules for the EM program's remaining 
scope of work. However, as a result of this re-baselining, EM 
now estimates the total life cycle costs of remaining cleanup 
to be between $265.1 and $305.0 billion, a 35 to 55 percent 
increase over previous life cycle cost estimates. Furthermore, 
while total life cycle cleanup cost estimates are increasing, 
overall funding for the EM program has been decreasing.
    The committee is concerned that the EM program is in need 
of additional resources at a number of different sites and 
urges the Department of Energy to put additional resources into 
this activity in future years' budget requests. The committee 
recommends an additional $10.0 million within Defense 
Environmental Cleanup for high risk cleanup activities at the 
Hanford Site.

Federal facility agreement and consent order milestones

    The committee understands that the Department of Energy 
(the Department) enters into legally enforceable agreements on 
environmental cleanup milestones with local and state 
authorities. The committee is concerned that the Department may 
fail to meet up to 31 of these federal facility agreements or 
consent order milestones in fiscal year 2009. These regulatory 
milestones apply to 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 aware that two-thirds of the 31 afore-
mentioned milestones are at risk due to funding constraints. 
The committee considers recent funding reductions for Defense 
Environmental Cleanup to be out of step with the Department's 
remaining cleanup scope of work. The committee supports the 
Department's intent to execute its work scope by placing the 
highest priority on projects that address the greatest risks to 
human health and the environment. But the committee also 
expects the Department to continue to strive to meet all 
milestones.

Consolidation and disposition of surplus special nuclear materials

    The committee understands that the Department of Energy 
(the Department) expects to complete plans in fiscal year 2008 
for the consolidation and disposition of approximately 166 
metric tons (MT) of surplus, non-programmatic, special nuclear 
materials. This quantity includes approximately 58 MT of 
plutonium and approximately 108 MT of highly enriched uranium. 
These materials are stored at multiple locations including the 
Savannah River Site (SRS), Hanford Site, Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Pantex 
Plant, and the Y-12 National Security Complex.
    The committee supports consolidation and disposition of 
these surplus materials to the maximum extent practicable in 
order to reduce the possibility that they could fall into the 
wrong hands, and to reflect the United States' commitment to 
the reduction of proliferation risks. The committee notes that 
consolidation and disposition should also reduce security costs 
associated with safeguarding these materials.
    Pursuant to the requirements of section 3155 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public 
Law 107-107), in September 2007, the Department set forth a 
baseline disposition plan for 13 MT of surplus ``non-pit'' 
plutonium. The Secretary of Energy presented this plan as part 
of a three-pronged approach for disposition of surplus 
plutonium:
          (1) A Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, 
        Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, and Waste 
        Solidification Building planned for SRS to dispose of 
        at least 34 MT of weapon-grade plutonium (the MOX 
        program);
          (2) A plutonium vitrification capability to dispose 
        of up to 13 MT of non-weapon-grade plutonium, also 
        planned for SRS; and
          (3) Use of the existing H-Canyon/HB-Line at SRS to 
        process approximately two MT of plutonium bearing 
        materials.
    Notwithstanding this planned approach, the committee notes 
the Department is exploring the feasibility of processing all 
surplus weapons-usable plutonium through the MOX facility and 
H-Canyon, without constructing a plutonium vitrification 
facility. The committee is aware that the technical feasibility 
depends in part on determining whether un-irradiated fuel 
assemblies originally intended for the Fast Flux Test Facility 
at the Hanford Site can be processed through H-Canyon/HB-Line.
    The committee expects the Secretary of Energy to notify the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on 
Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the 
House Committee on Appropriations of the Department's updated 
disposition strategy for surplus non-weapon-grade plutonium 
prior to shipping the un-irradiated fuel assemblies currently 
stored at Hanford and destined for the proposed plutonium 
vitrification facility to the Savannah River Site.

Coordination of disposition efforts

    The committee understands that several offices within the 
Department of Energy participate in the consolidation and 
disposition of special nuclear materials (SNM), including the 
National Nuclear Security Administration, the Offices of 
Environmental Management, Nuclear Energy, and Science, and the 
General Counsel. Because of this dispersed authority, the 
committee regards the Nuclear Material Disposition 
Consolidation Coordinating Committee (NMDCCC) as a valuable 
tool for the Department of Energy. The committee encourages the 
Secretary of Energy to ensure that the NMDCCC, or a similar 
coordinating office, remains in place.

Mound Site cleanup

    The budget request contained $45.9 million for closure 
sites, including $30.6 million for the Miamisburg, Ohio Closure 
Project cleanup.
    The committee recommends $55.9 million for closure sites, 
an increase of $10.0 million, for additional cleanup of the 
Mound Site in Miamisburg, Ohio.

Low-activity waste treatment and disposition at Hanford

    The budget request contained $288.4 million for radioactive 
liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition for the Office 
of River Protection, including $1.0 million for a Demonstration 
Bulk Vitrification System (DBVS).
    Approximately 53 million gallons of radioactive waste are 
stored underground at the Department of Energy Hanford site, 
including both high-level waste (HLW) and low-activity waste 
(LAW). The Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), currently under 
construction, is designed to process 100 percent of the HLW but 
only approximately 50 percent of the LAW at the Hanford site. 
Therefore, the Department of Energy has been evaluating a 
supplemental bulk vitrification technology, the DBVS, to treat 
the remaining fraction of low-activity waste. According to the 
budget request, DBVS was expected to reach Critical Decision-2 
(CD-2), approval of the performance baseline, in January 2008. 
However, at the time of this report, the CD-2 determination has 
not been made.
    The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management 
testified to the committee on March 12, 2008, that the 
Department of Energy has retained independent experts to assess 
the range of options for supplemental LAW treatment, including 
bulk vitrification and others. Further, the Assistant Secretary 
testified that this analysis is expected to be completed in 
June 2008.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to provide a 
plan for treating and disposing of all low-activity waste at 
Hanford to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House 
Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, and the House Committee on Appropriations by 
January 1, 2009.
    The committee recommends $288.4 million for radioactive 
liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition, the amount of 
the budget request.

                        Other Defense Activities


Nuclear energy--Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

    The budget request contained $487.0 million for the Mixed 
Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, including $19.2 million 
in operations and maintenance and $467.8 million in 
construction and other project costs, within Other Defense 
Activities--Nuclear Energy.
    Pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 
(Public Law 110-161), funding for the MOX project was 
transferred to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and 
Technology (NE). As discussed elsewhere in this report, the 
committee views the MOX project as a nonproliferation and 
national security activity, and does not believe the transfer 
of funding for the MOX project to NE was necessary. The 
committee understands, however, that the Department of Energy 
has constructed an arrangement between the National Nuclear 
Security Administration Office of Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation (NN) and NE through which the MOX project can 
be funded through NE but managed and executed by NN.
    The committee recommends $487.0 million for the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Fabrication Facility, the amount of the request.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

    The budget request contained $247.4 million for defense 
nuclear waste disposal, all to be directed towards 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 $247.4 million for defense nuclear 
waste disposal, the amount of the budget request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


          Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations


         Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration

    This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear 
Security Administration for fiscal year 2009, 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 2009.

                 Section 3103--Other Defense Activities

    This section would authorize funds for other defense 
activities for fiscal year 2009, including funds for the Mixed 
Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site, 
South Carolina.

              Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

    This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear 
waste disposal for fiscal year 2009.

              Section 3105--Energy Security and Assurance

    This section would authorize funds for energy security and 
assurance programs for fiscal year 2009.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


  Section 3111--Utilization of International Contributions to Russian 
                     Plutonium Disposition Program

    This section would provide the Secretary of Energy with 
authority to accept international contributions for the 
effective and transparent disposition of the Russian 
Federation's surplus weapons-grade plutonium under the Russian 
Plutonium Disposition program. This section would require the 
Secretary of Energy, within 30 days after the receipt of an 
international contribution under this section, to provide the 
congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 
with notice of such contribution. This section would also 
require the Secretary of Energy, by October 31 of each year, 
beginning in the fiscal year in which the first contributions 
under this section are retained, to submit to the congressional 
defense committees, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 
and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs a report on the 
receipt and use of any international contributions under this 
section during the preceding fiscal year. The authority under 
this section would expire on December 31, 2013.

 Section 3112--Extension of Deadline for Comptroller General Report on 
            Department of Energy Protective Force Management

    This section would extend the deadline established in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181) for the Comptroller General to conduct an 
assessment of the Department of Energy's management of 
protective forces at departmental sites with category one 
special nuclear material. This section would establish a new 
deadline of March 1, 2009.

          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $25.5 million for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2009. The 
committee recommends $25.5 million, the amount of the request.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


                      Section 3201--Authorization

    This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2009.

                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


             Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize $19.1 million for fiscal year 
2009 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and 
Oil Reserves.

                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS


   Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009

    This section would authorize a total of $387.8 million for 
the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation 
for fiscal year 2009. Of the funds authorized, $171.8 million 
would be available for operations and training activities, 
$193.5 million would be available for the Maritime Security 
Program of which $19.5 million would be available for 
maintenance reimbursement for the Maritime Security Fleet, 
$18.0 million for the program to dispose of obsolete vessels, 
$25.0 million for assistance to small shipyards, and $30.0 
million for the loan guarantee program authorized by chapter 
537 of title 46, United States Code, commonly referred to as 
the Title XI Loan Program.

 Section 3502--Limitation on Export of Vessels Owned by the Government 
  of the United States for the Purpose of Dismantling, Recycling, or 
                               Scrapping

    This section would require that any vessel owned or 
controlled by the United States Maritime Administration, United 
States Navy, or any other government agency shall not be 
approved for export to a foreign country for purposes of 
dismantling, recycling, or scrapping. The Administrator of the 
Maritime Administration may waive this requirement only with 
certification that there is no available capacity for disposal 
in the United States, a compelling need exists for the vessel 
to be dismantled or scrapped, and that the foreign shipyard 
conducting the dismantling or scrapping would adhere to the 
safety, labor, and health requirements equivalent to the laws 
of the United States.

           Section 3503--Student Incentive Payment Agreements

    This section would authorize the Secretary to increase 
student incentive payments at the State Maritime Academies from 
$4,000 per year to $8,000 per year.

             Section 3504--Riding Gang Member Requirements

    This section would amend section 1018 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) to require that all persons onboard vessels 
involved in the carriage of cargo for the Department of 
Defense, with the exception of supercargo personnel, possess a 
merchant mariners' document or a transportation worker security 
card issued pursuant to the requirements of chapter 73 of title 
46, United States Code. In addition, this section would 
stipulate that supercargo personnel onboard the vessels at the 
direction of the Secretary may satisfy the requirement for a 
merchant mariners' document or a transportation worker security 
card by passing a background security check conducted by the 
Secretary and that these supercargo personnel are not 
considered riding gang members pursuant to section 8106 of 
title 46, United States Code.

  Section 3505--Maintenance and Repair Reimbursement Program for the 
                        Maritime Security Fleet

    This section would amend section 3517 of the Maritime 
Security Act of 2003 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note) requiring that the 
Secretary of Transportation implement the Maintenance and 
Repair Reimbursement Pilot Program with one or more contractors 
currently participating in the Maritime Security Program under 
chapter 531 of title 46, United States Code.

  Section 3506--Temporary Program Authorizing Contracts with Adjunct 
        Professors at the United States Merchant Marine Academy

    This section would authorize the Administer of the Maritime 
Administration to continue current contracts with Adjunct 
Professors and enter into contracts as necessary for Adjunct 
Professors until December 30, 2009. All such contracts entered 
into under this authority would terminate six months after that 
date. This temporary authority is required to allow time for 
the Merchant Marine Academy to develop and implement a 
personnel and budget plan to eliminate the use of Adjunct 
Professors hired under personal services contracts by the 
Academy.

                           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 5, 2008.
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 2009.
    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 14, 2008.
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 
2009.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                            Acting General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                                ------                                

                               Department of State,
                             Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                    Washington, DC, March 18, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Skelton: The enclosed letter, putting forward a 
legislative proposal for Presidential authority to waive 
Section 1083 of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act and 
signed by the Secretaries of State, Defense, Commerce and 
Energy, was transmitted by the Department of State to the House 
and Senate leaders this morning
    We hope this information is useful to you and other Members 
of Congress and we look forward to working with you on this 
important initiative. Please do not hesitate to contact us if 
we can be of further assistance.
            Sincerely,
                                        Jeffrey T. Bergner,
                                               Assistant Secretary.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, March 20, 2008.
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 
2009.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                            Acting General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, April 18, 2008.
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 
2009.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                            Acting General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, April 25, 2008.
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 that 
would implement initiatives concerning military spousal 
benefits presented by the President in his State of the Union 
Address.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                            Acting General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                                ------                                

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, April 25, 2008.
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 
2009.
    The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying 
section-by-section analysis.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for 
your consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                       Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                            Acting General Counsel.
    Enclosure: As stated.
                                ------                                

                              Department of Transportation,
                                       Washington, DC, May 8, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: There is transmitted herewith for the 
consideration of Congress and referral to the appropriate 
committees a proposed bill,
    ``To authorize certain maritime programs of the Department 
of Transportation, and for other purposes.''
    The proposal seeks to enhance the operations of the United 
States Maritime Administration through amendments and 
improvements to certain maritime programs.
    The proposal would provide the Secretary of Transportation 
(Secretary) authority to donate non-retention vessels to 
foreign Governments for use as training vessels and would 
clarify the disposal of non-retention government vessels.
    The proposal would allow the Maritime Administration to 
retain proceeds from sale and scrapping of non-retention 
vessels into the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund with a 
waterfall of how such funds can be expended. The proposal would 
also allow the Maritime Administration to deposit insurance 
proceeds and recoveries resulting from accident litigation and 
arbitration awards from third parties into the Vessel 
Operations Revolving Fund instead of such funds being deposited 
into the Treasury, allowing the Agency to be ``made whole'' for 
damage to its vessels.
    The proposal would amend Title XIII of the Merchant Marine 
Act, 1936, to exempt Academy graduates who serve on active duty 
for five years from certain performance service obligations 
under the commitment agreement requirements. The proposal would 
allow the United States Merchant Marine Academy (Academy) and 
State maritime academies to collect the cost of tuition and 
student incentive payments (SIP) from certain graduates 
defaulting on their service obligations. The proposal would 
also allow the Academy to contract with individuals as personal 
service contractors to serve as adjunct professors.
    The proposal would allow the Secretary to waive the 
requirements that an individual pass the Coast Guard licensing 
examination as a condition of graduation from a State maritime 
academy. The waiver would allow accommodation for individuals 
with disabilities. The proposal would also increase SIP from 
$4,000 to $8,000 per academic year and service obligation 
requirements for students receiving SIP from six (6) years to 
eight (8) years relating to time in reserves and Coast Guard 
licensing.
    The proposal would also authorize the Secretary to provide 
for the construction and reconstruction of suitable training 
vessels with modern equipment and instruments to replace 
vessels furnished to State maritime academies. The proposal 
would likewise provide the Secretary with the authority to 
administer an intermodal and marine facilities program 
comprising of port infrastructure development or expansion. The 
program would be subject to the availability of appropriations. 
It would also extend authority for the Marine War Risk program 
from December 31, 2010 until December 31, 2015.
    Lastly, the proposal would provide tax relief for only U.S. 
citizen merchant mariners serving on Liquefied Natural Gas 
vessels operated under the registry of a foreign country.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection to the presentation of this proposed legislation 
to Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the 
program of the President.
            Sincerely yours,
                                            Mary E. Peters,
                                       Secretary of Transportation.
    2 Enclosures.
          Identical letter to the President of the Senate.
          Draft bill and section-by-section analysis.

                           COMMITTEE POSITION

    On May 14, 2008 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 
being present, approved H.R. 5658, as amended, by a vote of 61-
0.

                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Natural Resources,
                                      Washington, DC, May 14, 2008.
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. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009, for provisions which are within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources. Among these 
provisions are those dealing with compensation and benefits for 
the NOAA Corps, off-installation mitigation authority in 
natural resources management, Guam realignment issues, and 
extension of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail through 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, among others.
    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. 5658 
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. 
5658 and 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 16, 2008.
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. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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 Veterans Affairs,
                                      Washington, DC, May 15, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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. 5658, 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. 
5658 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 16, 2008.
Hon. Bob Filner,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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 Education and Labor,
                                      Washington, DC, May 15, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
understanding regarding consideration of H.R. 5658, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which 
was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. As you know, 
this legislation contains subject matter within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor.
    Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly, 
I do not intend to request the sequential referral of H.R. 5658 
to the Committee on Education and Labor. I do so, however, only 
with the understanding that this procedural route should not be 
construed to prejudice this Committee's jurisdictional 
interests and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar 
legislation. 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.
    Finally, I ask that you include a copy of our exchange of 
letters in your committee's report on H.R. 5658 and in the 
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the 
House Floor. 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 16, 2008.
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. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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 Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                      Washington, DC, May 15, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you regarding H.R. 5658, the 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009''. 
This legislation authorizes military activities of the 
Department of Defense and other programs.
    H.R. 5658 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. 5658.
    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. 5658 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. 5658 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 16, 2008.
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. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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 Homeland Security,
                                      Washington, DC, May 16, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of Committee on Homeland Security in 
matters being considered in H.R. 5658, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5658 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 
Committee on Homeland Security, and that a copy of this letter 
and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest 
will be included in the Committee Report and as part of the 
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the 
House.
    The Committee on Homeland Security also asks that you 
support our request to be conferees on the provisions over 
which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                        Bennie G. Thompson,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 16, 2008.
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. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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,
                Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
                                      Washington, DC, May 16, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence in matters being considered in H.R. 5658, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
    Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5658 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 16, 2008.
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. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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 Oversight and Government Reform,
                                      Washington, DC, May 13, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing about H.R. 5658, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which 
the Committee on Armed Services plans to markup on May 14, 
2008.
    I appreciate your effort to consult with the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of 
H.R. 5658 that fall within the Oversight Committee's 
jurisdiction. These provisions involve the federal civil 
service and federal acquisition policies.
    In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 5658, 
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. 5658 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. 5658 that fall 
within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee.
    Finally, I request that you include our exchange of letters 
on this matter in the Committee on Armed Services Committee 
Report on H.R. 5658 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 16, 2008.
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. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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,
                              Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                      Washington, DC, May 16, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you concerning the bill, 
H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009. There are certain provisions in the 
legislation as reported by the Committee on Armed Services 
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 prepared to waive the right of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs 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 the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I will seek to have 
Members of the Committee designated as members of any future 
conference regarding H.R. 5658, and I request that you urge the 
Speaker to appoint Members of this Committee to any conference 
committee which is named to consider any such provisions.
    I appreciate your cooperation on these matters, and I would 
ask that you place this letter into the Committee Report on 
H.R. 5658.
            Sincerely,
                                             Howard Berman,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 16, 2008.
Hon. Howard Berman,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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 16, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write with regard to H.R. 5658, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. 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 (or similar legislation) 
that are within the Committee's jurisdiction.
    The provisions of the reported bill that are within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce include 
the following:
    Sec. 313. Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency 
for Certain Costs in Connection with Moses Lake Wellfield 
Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington.
    Sec. 601. Fiscal Year 2009 Increase in Military Basic Pay.
    Sec. 608. Guaranteed pay increase for members of the Armed 
Forces of one-half of one percentage point higher than 
Employment Cost Index.
    Sec. 619. Use of New Skill Incentive Pay and Proficiency 
Bonus Authorities to Encourage Training in Critical Foreign 
Languages and Foreign Cultural Studies.
    Sec. 1033. Extension of Commission to Assess the Threat of 
the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack.
    I request that you send a letter to me confirming our 
agreements as to jurisdiction, 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.
    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.
    With every good wish,
            Sincerely,
                                           John D. Dingell,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                      Washington, DC, May 16, 2008.
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. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009. 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 agree 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.

                              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 2009 
and each of the following five fiscal years. The results of 
such efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate, 
which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House 
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:

          Congressional Budget Office Mandatory Cost Estimate

                                                      May 16, 2008.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed table showing a preliminary estimate of 
the direct spending effects of H.R. 5658, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, as ordered reported by 
the House Committee on Armed Services on May 14, 2008. CBO's 
complete cost estimate for H.R. 5658, including the 
discretionary costs of the bill, will be provided shortly.
    Based on the legislative language for H.R. 5658 that was 
provided to CBO on May 15, 2008, CBO estimates that enacting 
this bill would increase direct spending by $2 million in 2009, 
and decrease such spending by $13 million over the 2009-2013 
period and by $75 million over the 2009-2018 period. The 
largest budgetary effects would result from changes in the 
TRICARE pharmacy benefit and retirement programs, and the sale 
of assets from the National Defense Stockpile. Enactment of the 
bill would not affect revenues. For the purposes of this 
estimate, we assume that H.R. 5658 will be enacted near the 
beginning of fiscal year 2009.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Schmit, who can be reached at 226-2840.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.
    
    
                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with 
the mandatory estimate as contained in the report of the 
Congressional Budget Office.

                     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, take care of service members and 
their families, increase focus on the war in Afghanistan, and 
improve interagency cooperation, 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 7,000 
        personnel in the Army, 5,000 in the Marine Corps, 1,023 
        in the Navy, and 450 in the Air Force in 2009. This 
        would bring end strength levels to 532,400 for the 
        Army, 194,000 for the Marine Corps, 326,323 for the 
        Navy, and 317,050 for the Air Force.
          (2) Direct approximately $2 billion toward unfunded 
        readiness initiatives requested by the services;
          (3) Authorize $8.6 billion for the Army and $1.8 
        billion for the Marine Corps to fully fund equipment 
        reset requirements;
          (4) Authorize $932.2 million for equipment shortfalls 
        and equipment maintenance and authorize $800 million 
        for the National Guard and Reserve to purchase 
        equipment on its unfunded requirements list;
          (5) Provide $650 million in addition to the 
        President's request for Sustainment, Restoration, and 
        Modernization accounts to keep defense facilities in 
        good working order and to address urgent issues such as 
        dilapidated military barracks.
    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 3.9 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 2.9 percent;
          (2) Prohibit increases in both TRICARE and pharmacy 
        user fees, which would prevent over $1.2 billion in 
        healthcare costs from being passed on to service 
        members; and
          (3) Meet the needs of today's service members and 
        their families by increasing funding for family support 
        programs by $15 million, establishing a tuition 
        assistance program for eligible military spouses, 
        authorizing a career intermission pilot program, and 
        creating new preventive health care initiatives.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of increasing 
focus on the war in Afghanistan, the objective of this 
legislation is to:
          (1) Address the need to improve the command and 
        control structure for military forces operating in 
        Afghanistan to better coordinate military operations 
        and achieve a unity of command;
          (2) Require more robust congressional reporting on 
        the Afghan National Security Forces; and
          (3) Require the administration to submit separate 
        budget requests for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of increasing 
interagency cooperation, the objective of this legislation is 
to:
          (1) Require the President to develop and implement a 
        system to measure the performance of U.S.-led 
        Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Iraq and 
        Afghanistan; and
          (2) Require reports on PRT personnel recruitment and 
        training, planning for future requirements, security 
        for PRTs, and planning for future stability operations.
          (3) Establish a Strategic Communication Management 
        Board including interagency participation to provide 
        strategic direction to the Department of Defense's 
        efforts this area.

                   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. 5658. The 
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
    The committee ordered H.R. 5658 reported to the House with 
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 61-0, 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. 5658 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 
$531.4 billion for the Fiscal Year 2009 base budget of the 
Department of Defense and national security programs of the 
Department of Energy. Additionally, it includes more than $70 
billion to fund war costs for the first few months of Fiscal 
Year 2009.
    The Army and Marine Corps end-strength growth in this 
legislation continues initiatives started by this committee 
several years ago: in Fiscal Year 2009, the Army would be 
authorized 532,400 active duty personnel--7,000 more than 
authorized last year--and the Marine Corps would be authorized 
194,000 active duty personnel--5,000 more than last year. It 
continues this committee's commitment to force protection by 
adding $2.4 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 
vehicle.
    In addition, we commend the insertion of a provision that 
would require the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual 
report on the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear capabilities. 
We observe that Iran continues to enrich uranium--a pacing item 
for a nuclear weapons capability--and expand its enrichment 
capability, but we do not have insight into these activities. 
Our national and international security depends upon a 
transparent understanding of Iran's nuclear enrichment 
capabilities and intentions.
    As proud as we are of this legislation, we also recognize 
that this bill is not a perfect bill.
    As a nation, we can never adequately repay our brave men 
and women in uniform and their families for the sacrifices they 
make to protect our freedom. In that regard, we believe that 
Congress has the unmistakable obligation to ensure that our 
troops and their families, and in particular their survivors, 
are afforded every benefit to the full extent intended to 
support their needs arising from military service.
    Thus, we regret and express our disappointment that the 
committee did not enact an amendment to increase payments to 
military surviving spouses and children by repealing the SBP-
DIC offset or Widow's Tax. The amendment directed the chairman 
of the Budget Committee to use the authority in the House-
passed fiscal year 2009 budget resolution to provide the 
mandatory and discretionary spending necessary to eliminate 
SBP-DIC offsets.
    The chairman of the House Budget Committee has the 
authority in Section 301 of H. Con. Res. 312 to ``revise the 
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels...for any 
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
that......(4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled 
military retirees to receive both disability compensation pay 
and retired pay and (5) eliminates the offset between Survivor 
Benefit Plan annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity 
compensation.''
    We are also severely disappointed in the budget gimmick 
used to fund the prohibition on TRICARE pharmacy co-pay 
increases. Instead of finding a reasonable approach to 
adjusting mandatory spending levels to assist the committee in 
finding $40 million in mandatory spending offsets, the House 
leadership suggested a budgetary gimmick that requires military 
retirees to take a cut of one percent in their retired pay for 
a month.
    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 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 made it the policy of the 
United States to commit a minimum of 4 percent of the Nation's 
gross domestic product to the base defense budget, or $606 
billion in fiscal year 2009.
    Rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea are expanding 
their arsenals of ballistic missiles and proliferating both 
missile and nuclear technology. Our North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) allies recognize this threat and in April 
2008 provided unanimous endorsement of the ``substantial 
contribution to the protection of Allies from long-range 
ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of 
European-based United States missile defence assets.'' This 
initiative would also protect the American people and our 
forward-deployed forces, and complement other U.S. and NATO 
missile defense systems.
    The Administration and our NATO allies have committed to 
our collective security, the Congress has demanded it, and yet 
this legislation significantly reduces funds for the European 
missile defense initiative. We believe this sends a terrible 
signal to our allies and emboldens Iran. This is a crucial time 
for the U.S. to continue its leadership; in addition to NATO, 
we have key allies such as Israel and Japan who are relying on 
U.S. commitments to missile defense.
    We are therefore dismayed that the committee would waiver 
in its support of this effort, particularly after significant 
progress has been made to meet the conditions outlined in last 
year's legislation. We are equally concerned that the committee 
was unwilling to restore funds for the Multiple Kill Vehicle 
program, which is a key investment program to address more 
sophisticated ballistic missile threats that we see on the 
horizon. As the Secretary General of NATO said at a speech in 
Prague on May 5, 2008, ``In tomorrow's uncertain world, we can 
not wait for threats to mature before deciding how to counter 
them.''
    We also remain concerned about China's actions in space. 
According to the Pentagon's annual China military report, its 
undeclared and unexplained January 2007 anti-satellite test is 
only one part of a larger Chinese counterspace program to 
prevent the use of space. Thus, we were strongly disappointed 
and troubled by the rejection of an amendment that would have 
directed an independent study to examine the feasibility of 
space-based defense concepts. Such a system might also provide 
another layer of defense against ballistic missile threats.
    H.R. 5658 also reflects a funding reduction of $233 million 
to the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. This 
represents the fourth consecutive funding cut to the FCS 
program totaling over $1 billion dollars. We agree that the 
Army needs a higher top-line, but the Army's funding crisis 
cannot be solved by making year after year funding reductions 
to critical modernization programs such as the FCS program. 
This committee has been asking the hard questions in regard to 
FCS all the way back to 2004. Consequently, the Army has made 
some positive changes to the program as a result of our 
oversight activities and direction.
    We believe that four consecutive years of funding 
reductions will have a negative impact on the program. Work 
will have to be deferred which means critical decision points 
will have to be moved to the right. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), at our direction, does a detailed 
report on FCS every year. We believe that the GAO does very 
good work, and over the years they have highlighted many issues 
and concerns with the FCS program which the committee has taken 
into consideration in the form of legislation.
    The title of this year's report is: `2009 Review of Future 
Combat System Is Critical to Program's Direction.' They chose 
this title because in 2007 this committee wrote and the 
President signed into law a provision that directs the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a `Go, No-Go' review of the FCS 
program following its Preliminary Design Review in 2009. We 
directed that at the end of the 2009 review the Secretary of 
Defense must decide to continue the FCS program as planned, 
restructure the program, or terminate the program.
    At some point Congress must give the Army the opportunity 
to demonstrate whether the system can perform. We believe the 
Army should have at least one year of stable funding in order 
to let the Secretary of Defense and the Army decide the fate of 
the FCS program in 2009.
    In addition to the funding cut to the FCS program, H.R. 
5658 includes a provision that would prevent the Army from 
using a Lead Systems Integrator during low rate initial 
production and full rate production. We support this provision, 
but believe that it might need to be modified in conference to 
ensure that there is no negative impact to the Army's ability 
to conduct a successful Initial Operational Test and 
Evaluation.
    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.
                                   Roscoe G. Bartlett.
                                   Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon.
                                   Mac Thornberry.
                                   Robin Hayes.
                                   W. Todd Akin.
                                   J. Randy Forbes.
                                   Joe Wilson.
                                   Frank A. LoBiondo.
                                   Tom Cole.
                                   Rob Bishop.
                                   John Kline.
                                   Phil Gingrey.
                                   Mike Rogers.
                                   Trent Franks.
                                   Bill Shuster.
                                   Thelma D. Drake.
                                   K. Michael Conaway.
                                   Doug Lamborn.
                                   Robert J. Wittman.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES JIM MARSHALL, TOM COLE, ROB BISHOP 
                          AND MICHAEL TURNER.

    We submit additional views concerning Section 327, Guidance 
for performance of civilian personnel work under Air Force 
civilian consolidation plan, the Committee's guidance to the 
Secretary of the Air Force regarding efforts to centralize 
personnel management services, particularly as this effort 
affects the large civilian work centers (``LCCs'' which include 
Wright-Patterson, Robins, Tinker, Hill and Bolling Air Force 
Bases).
    Pursuant to a 1993 DoD directive, the Air Force has sought, 
with varying levels of enthusiasm, to centralize personnel 
management functions in one location, largely removing them 
from the on-site control of the base commander. Unlike most AF 
instillations, the success of the mission at its large civilian 
work centers (Wright-Patterson, Robins, Tinker, Hill and 
Bolling AFBs, the ``LCCs'') depends upon a complicated civilian 
workforce numbering in the thousands with hundreds of job 
classifications. So AF rightly delayed removing major personnel 
functions from the LCCs, centralizing only those personnel 
services that might easily be provided by email or telephone 
(e.g. some IT support, responding to routine employee inquiries 
about benefits, etc.).
    Aware that Air Force was balking, DoD sought to use the 
recent BRAC process to advance total centralization of the Air 
Force personnel functions. But the BRAC Commissioners rejected 
DoD's proposed BRAC language on this subject. Instead, for the 
LCCs, the Commissioners directed that each LCC ``retain 
sufficient positions and personnel to perform the personnel 
management advisory services, the non-transactional functions, 
necessary to support . . . the civilian workforce.'' For each 
LCC, the Commissioners directed that only the ``transactional 
functions of the Civilian Personnel Office'' would be moved to 
Randolph AFB, the currently planned site for centralization.
    Mr. Marshall's amendment makes clear that the meaning of 
``transactional'' and ``non-transactional'' will vary depending 
upon the nature of the affected installation, furthering the 
BRAC Commissioners' goal of assuring that LCCs ``retain 
sufficient positions and personnel to perform the personnel 
management advisory services . . . necessary to support . . . 
the civilian workforce,'' a goal that is vitally important to 
mission performance at each LCC.
    Missions and activities have different levels of value and 
importance. Some are critical. Some are not. For example, a 
brief interruption of IT service for one activity (landing 
aircraft) might cause grave problems while elimination of IT 
service altogether for another (scheduling lawn service) might 
be no big deal. Besides such differences in criticality, the 
cost or practicality of delivering services will vary for 
different missions and activities. Infantrymen on patrol do not 
enjoy food service levels comparable to soldiers stationed in 
large bases, yet food for the active infantryman is more 
important than for those in the rear. It is laudable but 
typically impractical and wasteful to try to provide the 
highest level of civilian personnel management services to all 
AF bases. AFPC's service delivery targets will have to vary 
among installations and missions. There is no other practical, 
cost effective alternative. AF Commanders accept and understand 
that. In all walks of life--business, government, education, 
even pastoring--uniform provision of services is the exception, 
not the rule.
    By postponing centralization of the Civilian Personnel 
Offices of the AF large civilian work centers (``LCCs''--
Bolling, Hill, Robins, Tinker and Wright Pat), AF has already 
treated them differently from other commands. The LCCs are 
different. Their missions are civilian driven. Productivity of 
their civilian workforce is critical. Productivity will suffer 
significantly if key personnel management functions are removed 
to a different command and location. A remotely located 
management team responding to a separate command is also more 
remote from consequences and feedback. Its motivation, 
responsiveness and understanding cannot equal that of a 
management team that is part of the overall LCC team. 
Centralization of this sort did not work for the Soviet Union. 
It will not work for the Air Force.
    Mr. Marshall's amendment directs that certain personnel 
management functions must remain staffed at the LCCs, commanded 
by the LCC commander. These include: Staffing positions filled 
through internal or external recruitment processes, Development 
of position classifications or job descriptions, Employee 
management relations, including performance management 
programs, conduct or discipline programs and labor management 
programs, Labor force planning and management, including 
internal pay pool management and employee performance reviews, 
and Managing workers compensation program pursuant to chapter 
81 of title 5, United States Code, or relevant State Workers' 
compensation programs.
                                   Jim Marshall.
                                   Tom Cole.
                                   Rob Bishop.
                                   Michael Turner.

             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES ROB BISHOP

    While I support H.R. 5658 as a good, bi-partisan bill 
providing for our nation's defense for fiscal year FY'09, I 
have some serious reservations.
    It was disappointing that the Administration submitted an 
FY'09 defense budget which was a record $17 billion short of 
meeting verified military requirements. While this Committee 
tried its best to fill in some of the blanks, it too did not go 
far enough in several critical areas, such as aircraft 
procurement, because it was hemmed-in by the FY'09 Budget 
Resolution proffered by the House Democratic Leadership which 
shortchanges defense to fund misplaced priorities. We cannot 
continue to go down the road of placing demands on our military 
with aging equipment and 40-year old jet fighters, and still 
expect that our nation retain its status as a military 
superpower. We either need to reduce the demands that are 
placed upon the military, which is not always possible given 
emerging world threats, or else we remember our Constitutional 
duty to provide for the common defense and provide the 
resources needed to fulfill the military's mission. We now have 
aging F-15 aircraft disintegrating in mid-flight. We cannot 
continue to ask our pilots to fly fourth-generation fighters, 
which are nearing the end of their service life, without 
adequately providing for fifth-generation fighters in 
sufficient numbers to fulfill validated requirements and 
provide manufacturing efficiencies.
    The Army has not given sufficient attention to adequately 
funding its Military Construction (MILCON) program. When 
reviewing the Army's MILCON priorities again in FY'09, it is 
clear that they are placing nearly all of their dollars into 
Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) mandated moves and the 
``Grow the Force'' initiative for the forseeable future, and 
are neglecting non-BRAC bases or supporting installations. This 
disinvestment creates serious consequences for both readiness 
and morale at those other locations.
    A case-in point is Tooele Army Depot, Utah, with World War 
II era facilities, and 489 full-time Army civilian employees 
and 102 contractor employees. More munitions have been shipped 
to supply our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from Tooele than 
from any other location in the CONUS, and yet, the civilian 
workforce works on loading docks and other facilities that are 
over 60 years of age with no upgrades in sight. Tooele has not 
had any of its identified MILCON or improvement projects 
forwarded to Congress by the Army in over fifteen years. The 
Army keeps slipping Tooele's projects off of its five year 
defense plan (FYDP) in what's become an annual budgetary game. 
Even the most fiscally-conservative private business enterprise 
recognizes that it must invest a minimum of 3-5% in facilities 
upkeep and modernization just to stay ahead of the profit and 
loss curve. Some of the facilities at Tooele are so far gone 
that they must simply be razed due to deterioration, but the 
Army hasn't even funded that. If the Army continues to rely on 
Tooele to do a mission, then it must adequately provide for it 
and not expect the workforce to continue to do more with 
facilities falling down around them, especially when hundreds 
of millions, and even billions of dollars, are flowing to other 
Army installations around the country each year for MILCON 
projects.
    Another area of chronic neglect is in the area of 
environmentally-responsible Conventional Munitions disposal at 
Tooele and elsewhere. The Army's open-pit, open-burn method of 
disposal grows increasingly intolerable due to environmental 
concerns. This is something the Army should address in a more 
aggressive manner.
    The Army has also neglected Dugway Proving Grounds. 
Workload at Dugway has increased by nearly 800 percent since 
September 11, 2001 in chemical and biological defense testing, 
even as the Army has actually disinvested in Dugway's 
facilities. As a result, a vitally needed laboratory addition 
project has been continuously postponed in the Army's budget 
submission for the last several years. Army scientists at 
Dugway have no choice but to conduct sensitive BioLevel-3 level 
testing work in crowded and inadequate temporary trailers. 
Dugway's water system is 50 years old, deteriorating, and fails 
to meet basic water quality standards. Yet, the MILCON project 
to upgrade the water system continually falls off the Army's 
FYDP. The quality of life for persons living at Dugway's remote 
and isolated location is being neglected. Dugway's community 
club, the only retail dining opportunity for residents within 
an hour's drive of the base, has been partially condemned due 
to lack of running water and asbestos tile hazards. It is a 
monumental embarrassment. A small MILCON project to replace it 
has been postponed for several years, and this year, was 
completely removed by the Army from the FYDP even though 
Congress provided design money for the project two years ago. 
These disinvestments risk alienation of state and community 
support.
    Finally, I am greatly concerned that the 110th Congress 
passed an Energy Bill that included Section 526 virtually 
precluding contracts between the Department of Defense and 
other entities engaged in alternative energy projects. As fuel 
costs increase, they are wreaking havoc on the Department's 
budgets. Since 2001, the amount spent for fuel by the 
Department for regular operations, not including wartime 
efforts, has more than doubled to nearly $7 billion. Every 
penny increase in the cost of jet fuel costs the services tens 
of millions of dollars that have to come out of personnel, 
modernization or facilities.
    Energy is one of the most critical national defense 
commodities. And yet, the House Democratic Leadership has 
precluded any common-sense, rational alternative fuels 
development by virtually prohibiting any Department of Defense 
support for oil shale extraction or coals to liquid fuel 
production by passing Section 526 of the recently enacted 
Democratic Energy bill.
    The United States has the largest known reserves of oil 
shale deposits in the entire world. According to the Energy 
Department, there are over 1 trillion barrels of recoverable 
oil locked into oil shale deposits in 3 western states of Utah, 
Colorado and Wyoming. This was recognized decades ago when the 
Department of Defense set aside significant Naval Oil Shale 
reserves in Eastern Utah. They were viewed specifically as a 
key component of our defense energy security reserves.
    Modern oil shale extraction technologies have advanced 
greatly and are much more environmentally sensitive. It is 
commercially viable and competitive with conventional oil 
sources at $50 a barrel. Would that we could return to the days 
of $50 a barrel!
    Another aspect of refining jet fuel derived from oil shale 
is the higher energy or BTU content when compared with 
conventional fuel sources. This could be important in extending 
the range of fighter jet aircraft. That benefit is also being 
precluded by Section 526. As enacted, Section 526 is the wrong 
policy and must be modified to include a waiver by the 
Department of Defense.
    Congress should be encouraging, not discouraging, domestic 
oil shale and coal-to-liquids development for use by the 
Department of Defense. Section 526 should be repealed or 
modified as quickly as possible. Such a repeal or modifying 
amendment was not possible during the Armed Services Committee 
deliberations on H.R. 5658 due to procedural and jurisdictional 
concerns among House committees. This is a vital issue that 
deserves a re-examination on the House floor when this bill is 
debated and voted by the Full membership of the House.

                                   Rob Bishop.

            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE NIKI TSONGAS

    I strongly support the underlying authorization. I also 
applaud the work of the Seapower Subcommittee, for their 
commitment to a 313 ship fleet and their efforts to control the 
ever increasing cost of shipbuilding in this country while 
supporting the industrial base. However, I am concerned by the 
potential consequences of the proposed pause in continued 
procurement of follow-on ships of the DDG-1000 ZUMWALT class. I 
appreciate that the Committee recommends $400 million for 
advanced procurement for surface combatants so that Navy has 
the flexibility to move forward with DDG-1000 or restart DDG-51 
procurement, but I am concerned about the impacts that this 
will have on our surface fleet manufacturing and technology 
base and on the future of our surface combatant capabilities.
    The DDG-1000 is the primary development program for the 
Navy's Family of Ships (FoS) strategy. Eliminating the 
authorization for funding the DDG-1000 class in this bill could 
dramatically increase the cost of current and future Navy 
shipbuilding programs, including the next generation cruiser, 
CG(X). Additionally, the industrial base that is so vital to 
our transition to a 21st century fleet of surface combatants 
could be decimated. There are more than 10,000 skilled workers 
in the U.S. working on the Mission Systems Equipment that is 
intended to support not only DDG-1000, but the entire Family of 
Ships. It will be extremely difficult and costly to 
reconstitute this workforce in the future.
    Sustaining this program lays the groundwork for the Navy's 
long standing plan, which includes the transition from this new 
destroyer to the next generation cruiser, CG(X), using the 
ZUMWALT hull and systems. Funding the third ship in the ZUMWALT 
Class is essential in FY09 to avoid the potential cost and 
long-term schedule implications of a break in production.
    I am also concerned that restarting procurement of the DDG-
51 could have unforeseen costs that could negate the perceived 
financial benefit of returning to the older class of ship. The 
Chief of Naval Operations submitted the request for the DDG-
1000 and clearly stated the Navy's need to build a total of 7 
ships of this class. The Navy has ensured that the ten key 
technologies incorporated into this new ship class have been 
well tested and their performance verified, and the ship design 
prior to start of construction will be more mature than that 
for any other surface combatant ship--indicators that the Navy 
well understands the program's costs. The Navy and Congress 
have supported this critical multi-purpose ship for fleet 
operations as a result of rigorous review, engineering 
development model risk reduction, computer-aided design, 
significant research and development investment, and updated 
cost modeling.
    This ship is designed to provide critical capabilities to 
defeat current and future evolving threats. DDG-1000 has been 
designed to carry out Navy missions while putting half as many 
sailors at risk when compared to the ships the Navy currently 
has to do complete these missions. It is designed for higher 
operational tempo and lower life-cycle costs than current Navy 
destroyers. Again, I appreciate the expertise of the Seapower 
Subcommittee and full Committee on these issues and for their 
dedication to our men and women of the Navy and Marine Corps. I 
ask that consideration of the above concerns be made as we move 
forward.

                                   Niki Tsongas.

                                  
