[Senate Report 110-335]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
110th Congress 2d Session        SENATE                 Report
                                                       110-335
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                       Calendar No. 732

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany s. 3001]

                                   on

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES 
   OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR 
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 
         STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES







                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     


                                     

                  May 12, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009




For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001



                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                      (110th Congress, 2d Session)

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island              JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida                 SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
JIM WEBB, Virginia                   MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi

                   Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director

              Michael V. Kostiw, Republican Staff Director

                                  (ii)


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              --
--------
                                                                   Page
Purpose of the Bill..............................................     1
    Committee overview...........................................     2
    Explanation of funding summary...............................     3
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations.................    15
Title I--Procurement.............................................    15
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    15
        Explanation of tables....................................    15
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................    17
        Stryker Mobile Gun System (sec. 111).....................    42
        Procurement of small arms (sec. 112).....................    42
    Budget Items--Army...........................................    43
        Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list....    43
        Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter..........................    44
        Forward-looking infrared radar systems...................    44
        Grenades Army............................................    44
        Radford Ammunition Plant upgrades........................    45
        Bomb line modernization..................................    45
        Area Common User System Modernization....................    45
        Army Global Command and Control System...................    45
        Information Technology Upgrades..........................    46
        Fido explosives detector.................................    46
        Land Warrior.............................................    46
        Combat Arms Training System..............................    46
        Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System.......    47
        Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System...................    47
        Laser collective combat advanced training system.........    47
        Urban training center instrumentation....................    47
        Operator driving simulators..............................    47
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............    48
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................    48
        Authority for advanced procurement and construction of 
          components for the Virginia-class submarine program 
          (sec. 131).............................................    74
        Refueling and complex overhaul of the USS Theodore 
          Roosevelt (sec. 132)...................................    74
    Budget Items.................................................    74
        E-2D Advanced Hawkeye....................................    74
        H-53 modifications.......................................    75
        P-3 modifications........................................    75
        Common ECM equipment.....................................    75
        Weapons industrial facilities............................    76
        Grenades Marine Corps....................................    76
        Virginia-class submarine advance procurement.............    76
        Littoral combat ship.....................................    76
        LPD-17 amphibious transport dock.........................    78
        LHA(R) advance procurement...............................    79
        DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer modernization 
          program................................................    79
        Submarine training device modifications..................    80
        Man overboard indicators.................................    81
        Logistics vehicle system replacement.....................    81
        Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program...........    81
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................    82
        F-22A fighter aircraft (Sec. 151)........................    99
    Budget Items--Air Force......................................    99
        Advanced procurement for the F136 engine.................    99
        C-17A engine spares......................................   100
        Tactical intelligence support............................   100
        Airborne Imaging.........................................   101
        Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance..........................   102
        National-Tactical SIGINT Initiatives.....................   103
        B-52 bomber..............................................   104
        Large aircraft infrared countermeasures system...........   104
        C-130 Avionics Modernization Program.....................   104
        Advanced targeting pod...................................   105
        Budget request realignments..............................   105
        Improved stores ejection cartridge.......................   106
        Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile....................   106
        Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite..............   106
        Intelligence communication equipment.....................   107
        Combat training ranges...................................   107
        Air Operations Centers...................................   108
    Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters...................   108
        Annual long-term plan for the procurement of aircraft for 
          the Navy and the Air Force (sec. 171)..................   108
    Budget Items--Defense-wide...................................   109
        Terminal High Altitude Area Defense......................   118
        Standard Missile-3 interceptors..........................   119
        Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance mission 
          equipment package......................................   120
        Special operations forces combat assault rifle...........   120
        Special operations visual augmentation systems hand-held 
          imager/long-range......................................   120
        M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask............   121
        Joint Chemical Agent Detector............................   121
        Joint Biological Standoff Detection System...............   121
    Items of Special Interest....................................   121
        Aegis modernization open architecture....................   121
        F/A-18 Hornet and Navy tactical aviation inventory 
          shortfall..............................................   123
        Light utility helicopter.................................   124
        Material handling equipment study........................   125
        Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.................   125
        Mission packages.........................................   126
        Operational support aircraft for U.S. Africa Command.....   126
        Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle...........................   127
        Ship maintenance and material condition..................   127
        Warfighter Information Network-Tactical..................   128
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............   129
    Explanation of tables........................................   129
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   131
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   131
        Requirement for plan on overhead nonimaging infrared 
          systems (sec. 211).....................................   131
        Advanced battery manufacturing and technology roadmap 
          (sec. 212).............................................   131
        Availability of funds for defense laboratories for 
          research and development of technologies for military 
          missions (sec. 213)....................................   132
        Assured funding for certain information security and 
          information assurance programs of the Department of 
          Defense (sec. 214).....................................   132
        Requirements for certain airborne intelligence collection 
          systems (sec. 215).....................................   133
    Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs.........................   133
        Review of the ballistic missile defense policy and 
          strategy of the United States (sec. 231)...............   133
        Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, 
          construction, and deployment of missile defenses in 
          Europe (sec. 232)......................................   134
        Airborne Laser system (sec. 233).........................   136
        Annual Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
          characterization of operational effectiveness, 
          suitability, and survivability of the Ballistic Missile 
          Defense System (sec. 234)..............................   136
        Independent assessment of boost-phase missile defense 
          programs (sec. 235)....................................   137
        Study on space-based interceptor element of ballistic 
          missile defense system (sec. 236)......................   138
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   139
        Modification of systems subject to survivability testing 
          by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
          (sec. 251).............................................   139
        Biennial reports on joint and service concept development 
          and experimentation (sec. 252).........................   139
        Repeal of annual reporting requirement relating to the 
          Technology Transition Initiative (sec. 253)............   140
        Executive agent for printed circuit board technology 
          (sec. 254).............................................   141
        Report on Department of Defense response to findings and 
          recommendations of the Defense Science Board Task Force 
          on Directed Energy Weapons (sec. 255)..................   142
        Assessment of standards for mission critical 
          semiconductors procured by the Department of Defense 
          (sec. 256).............................................   142
    Budget Items.................................................   143
        Army.....................................................   143
            Army basic research programs.........................   159
            Network science and technology research center.......   159
            Army materials research..............................   160
            Advanced Army energy and power technologies..........   161
            Army aviation technologies...........................   162
            Sniper detection systems.............................   162
            Army vehicle reliability technologies................   162
            Unmanned ground vehicle weaponization................   163
            Standoff explosives detection technologies...........   163
            Soldier positioning technologies.....................   163
            Military engineering technologies....................   163
            Combat feeding technologies..........................   164
            Army medical research................................   164
            Biosensor controller systems.........................   165
            Army medical advanced technology development.........   165
            Army aviation advanced technology development........   166
            Army combat vehicle technologies.....................   167
            Diverse threat sensor development....................   168
            Army training technologies...........................   168
            Deactivation of military explosives..................   168
            Army missile and rocket technologies.................   168
            Situational awareness technologies...................   168
            Unique item ID data management research..............   169
            Advanced electronics integration.....................   169
            Advanced environmental controls......................   169
            Advanced fuel cell research..........................   169
            Radiation hardening initiative.......................   169
            High-altitude integration testbed....................   170
            Air and missile defense architecture analysis........   170
            Stryker active protection system.....................   170
            Vibration management enhancement research............   170
            Next-generation combat helmet development............   170
            High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle 
              modernization research.............................   171
            Non-Line of Sight-Launch System anti-tamper research.   171
            Future Combat System.................................   171
            Urban training development...........................   172
            Extended range sniper rifle research.................   172
            Army test and target development.....................   172
            Javelin modernization................................   173
            Global Combat Support System, the Logistics 
              Modernization Program and Product Lifecycle 
              Management Plus....................................   173
            Army manufacturing technologies......................   174
        Navy.....................................................   174
            Navy basic research..................................   188
            Manufacturing engineering training...................   188
            Navy power projection research.......................   189
            Navy force protection research.......................   189
            Situational awareness processing technologies........   190
            Acoustic research and test capabilities..............   190
            Navy electronics research............................   190
            Advanced technologies for power projection...........   190
            Force protection advanced technology.................   191
            High-integrity Global Positioning System.............   192
            Ground sensor networks...............................   192
            Shipboard system component development...............   192
            Advanced submarine system development................   193
            Facilities improvements..............................   193
            Optical interconnect.................................   194
            Land attack technology...............................   194
            Directed energy......................................   194
            Next-generation cruiser..............................   195
            Improved towed array handler.........................   196
            Submarine electronic chart updates...................   196
            Next-generation Phalanx..............................   196
            NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system.................   197
            Combat wound tissue transplantation technologies.....   197
            F-35 Joint Strike Fighter competitive propulsion 
              system.............................................   197
            Navy test and evaluation support.....................   197
            Advanced LINAC facility..............................   198
            Navy support of the reliable replacement warhead.....   198
            Warfighter enhanced decision making..................   198
            Aviation improvements................................   199
            Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft 
              System.............................................   199
            Digital manufacturing technologies...................   199
            National Shipbuilding Research Program--Advanced 
              Shipbuilding Enterprise............................   200
        Air Force................................................   200
            Air Force basic research programs....................   215
            Air Force materials research.........................   215
            Optical components for air vehicles..................   216
            Air Force training technology........................   216
            Air Force aerospace propulsion technology............   216
            Aerospace sensor technologies........................   216
            Air Force seismic research...........................   217
            Cyber attack mitigation technologies.................   217
            Reconfigurable securing computing....................   217
            Propulsion technologies..............................   217
            Thin film amorphous solar arrays.....................   218
            Integrated targeting devices.........................   218
            Optical interconnect for battlefield communications..   218
            High energy laser weapon systems.....................   218
            Global Positioning System III operational control 
              segment............................................   219
            Space situational awareness..........................   219
            Transformational Communications satellite............   219
            Operationally Responsive Space.......................   220
            B-2 radar modernization program......................   221
            Space-based space surveillance block 10..............   221
            Space-based Infrared Satellite system................   221
            Third Generation Infrared Surveillance satellite 
              system.............................................   222
            F135 engine..........................................   222
            Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft........   223
            High speed test track................................   223
            B-52 bomber..........................................   223
            Air Operations Centers...............................   223
            Joint surveillance target attack radar system 
              research and development...........................   224
            Weather service research and development.............   224
            C-17 research, development, test, and evaluation.....   225
            Expeditionary Combat Support System..................   225
            Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System..   225
        Defense-wide.............................................   226
            Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
              Research...........................................   244
            In-vitro models for biodefense vaccines..............   244
            Superstructural particle evaluation..................   244
            Next-generation over-the-horizon radar...............   244
            Chemical agent fate response planning tool...........   245
            Chemical and biological applied research.............   245
            Chemical and biological infrared detector............   245
            Multivalent Marburg and Ebola vaccine................   246
            DARPA technology transition..........................   246
            Three-dimensional integrated circuit technologies....   246
            Blast mitigation and protection......................   246
            Comprehensive National Incident Management System....   247
            Special operations technologies......................   247
            Blast trauma research................................   247
            Blackswift...........................................   247
            Engineered biological detectors......................   249
            Improved chemical, biological, and radiological 
              filters............................................   249
            Raman chemical identification system.................   249
            Command and control gap filler joint capabilities 
              technology demonstration...........................   249
            High performance manufacturing technologies..........   250
            Defense Logistics Agency technology programs.........   250
            Superlattice nanotechnology..........................   251
            Special warfare domain awareness technologies........   251
            Weapon of mass destruction exercises.................   251
            Arrow missile defense program........................   251
            Short-range ballistic missile defense................   252
            Terminal High Altitude Area Defense..................   252
            Ground-based Midcourse Defense.......................   254
            Airborne Laser.......................................   256
            Real-time non-specific viral agent detector..........   257
            Ballistic missile defense sensors....................   257
            Kinetic Energy Interceptor...........................   258
            Ballistic missile defense reductions.................   259
            Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)................   259
            Space Tracking and Surveillance System...............   260
            Multiple Kill Vehicles...............................   261
            Space test-bed.......................................   262
            Missile Defense Agency funding reduction.............   263
            Corrosion control technologies.......................   263
            Conflict modeling technologies.......................   263
            Prompt global strike.................................   263
            Net-enabled command and control......................   264
            Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program.......   264
            Anti-tamper technologies.............................   265
            Force transformation directorate.....................   265
            Software assurance education and research............   266
            Status of Operational Readiness and Training Systems.   266
            Industrial Base Innovation Fund......................   266
    Items of Special Interest....................................   267
        Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense funding..................   267
        Agency relocation........................................   267
        Executive helicopter program (VH-71A)....................   268
        Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle...........................   270
        Global Positioning System................................   271
        Improved commercial imagery integration..................   271
Title III--Operation and Maintenance.............................   273
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   273
        Explanation of tables....................................   273
    Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions.........................   305
        Expansion of cooperative agreement authority for 
          management of natural resources to include off-
          installation mitigation (sec. 311).....................   305
        Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for 
          certain costs in connection with Moses Lake Wellfield 
          Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington (sec. 312)......   305
        Comprehensive program for the eradication of the brown 
          tree snake population from military facilities in Guam 
          (sec. 313).............................................   305
    Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot issues.......................   305
        Authority to consider depot-level maintenance and repair 
          using contractor furnished equipment or leased 
          facilities as core logistics (sec. 321)................   305
        Minimum capital investment for certain depots (sec. 322).   306
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................   306
        Additional information under annual submissions of 
          information regarding information technology capital 
          assets (sec. 331)......................................   306
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   306
        Mitigation of power outage risks for Department of 
          Defense facilities and activities (sec. 341)...........   306
        Increased authority to accept financial and other 
          incentives related to energy savings and new authority 
          related to energy systems (sec. 342)...................   307
        Recovery of improperly disposed of Department of Defense 
          property (sec. 343)....................................   307
    Budget Items.................................................   308
        Army.....................................................   308
            Computing services...................................   308
            Unmanned aircraft systems concept development........   308
            Shipping containers..................................   309
            Life cycle logistics contracting.....................   309
            Facilities sustainment, restoration, and 
              modernization......................................   309
            Second destination transportation....................   309
            Ammunition inspections and warehousing...............   309
        Navy.....................................................   309
            Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances.......   309
            Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements   310
            Naval aircraft depot maintenance.....................   310
            Damage control management............................   310
            MK 45 gun depot overhaul.............................   310
        Marine Corps.............................................   311
            Marine Corps shelters................................   311
            Mobile corrosion protection Marine Corps.............   311
        Air Force................................................   311
            B-52 flying hours....................................   311
            F-15 depot maintenance...............................   311
            B-52 depot maintenance...............................   311
            B-2 depot maintenance................................   312
            Engine trailer life extension program................   312
            Land mobile radios...................................   312
            National Security Space Institute....................   312
            Advanced ultrasonic inspection of aging aircraft 
              structures.........................................   312
        Defense-wide.............................................   312
            Expanded prisoner of war/missing in action research 
              in North Korea.....................................   312
            Defense Security Cooperation Agency..................   313
            Status of Operational Readiness and Training System..   313
            Defense Readiness Reporting System...................   313
            Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative....   314
            STARBASE Academies...................................   314
        Army Reserve.............................................   315
            Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve.............   315
            Army Reserve military technician cost avoidance......   315
        Army National Guard......................................   315
            Aircraft humidity protection.........................   315
            Expandable Light Air Mobility Shelters...............   315
            Extended Cold Weather Clothing System................   315
            Rapid Data Management System.........................   315
            Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard......   316
            Weapons Skills Trainer...............................   316
            Emergency satellite communications...................   316
        Air National Guard.......................................   316
            Controlled humidity protection.......................   316
            Crypto-linguist and intelligence officer initiative..   316
    Items of Special Interest....................................   316
        Assessment of plans for contracting support in combatant 
          command operational plans..............................   316
        Combatant Commander Initiative Fund......................   317
        Commercial satellite communications......................   318
        Defense Information Systems Agency working capital fund 
          management.............................................   318
        Funding for military morale, welfare, and recreation 
          programs...............................................   319
        Long-range facilities and construction planning at Army 
          ammunition plants and arsenals.........................   320
        Standards for deployable shelters........................   320
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations......................   323
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   323
        End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)...............   323
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   323
        End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............   323
        End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of 
          the Reserves (sec. 412)................................   324
        End strengths for military technicians (dual status) 
          (sec. 413).............................................   324
        Fiscal year 2009 limitation on number of non-dual status 
          technicians (sec. 414).................................   325
        Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on 
          active duty for operational support (sec. 415).........   325
        Increased end strengths for Reserves on active duty in 
          support of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve and 
          military technicians (dual status) of the Army National 
          Guard (sec. 416).......................................   325
        Modification of authorized strengths for Marine Corps 
          Reserve officers on active duty in the grades of major 
          and lieutenant colonel to meet new force structure 
          requirements (sec. 417)................................   326
    Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations.................   326
        Military personnel (sec. 421)............................   326
    Budget Items.................................................   326
        Military personnel funding changes.......................   326
        Military personnel unobligated balances..................   327
Title V--Military Personnel Policy...............................   329
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   329
        Modification of distribution requirements for 
          commissioned officers on active duty in general and 
          flag officer grades (sec. 501).........................   329
        Modification of limitations on authorized strengths of 
          general and flag officers on active duty (sec. 502)....   329
        Clarification of joint duty requirements for promotion to 
          general or flag grades (sec. 503)......................   330
        Modification of authorities on length of joint duty 
          assignments (sec. 504).................................   330
        Technical and conforming amendments relating to 
          modification of joint specialty requirements (sec. 505)   330
        Eligibility of reserve officers to serve on boards of 
          inquiry for separation of regular officers for 
          substandard performance and other reasons (sec. 506)...   330
        Modification of authority on Staff Judge Advocate to the 
          Commandant of the Marine Corps (sec. 507)..............   331
        Increase in number of permanent professors at the United 
          States Air Force Academy (sec. 508)....................   331
        Service creditable toward retirement for thirty years or 
          more of service of regular warrant officers other than 
          regular Army warrant officers (sec. 509)...............   331
        Modification of requirements for qualification for 
          issuance of posthumous commissions and warrants (sec. 
          510)...................................................   331
    Subtitle B--Enlisted Personnel Policy........................   331
        Increase in maximum period of reenlistment of regular 
          members of the armed forces (sec. 521).................   331
    Subtitle C--Reserve Component Management.....................   332
        Modification of limitations on authorized strengths of 
          reserve general and flag officers in active status 
          (sec. 531).............................................   332
        Extension to other reserve components of Army authority 
          for deferral of mandatory separation of military 
          technicians (dual status) until age 60 (sec. 532)......   332
        Increase in mandatory retirement age for certain Reserve 
          officers to age 62 (sec. 533)..........................   332
        Authority for vacancy promotion of National Guard and 
          Reserve officers ordered to active duty in support of a 
          contingency operation (sec. 534).......................   332
        Authority for retention of reserve component chaplains 
          and medical officers until age 68 (sec. 535)...........   332
        Modification of authorities on dual duty status of 
          National Guard officers (sec. 536).....................   333
        Modification of matching fund requirements under National 
          Guard Youth Challenge Program (sec. 537)...............   333
        Report on collection of information on civilian skills of 
          members of the reserve components of the armed forces 
          (sec. 538).............................................   333
    Subtitle D--Education and Training...........................   333
        Authority to prescribe the authorized strength of the 
          United States Naval Academy (sec. 551).................   333
        Tuition for attendance of certain individuals at the 
          United States Air Force Institute of Technology (sec. 
          552)...................................................   333
        Increase in stipend for baccalaureate students in nursing 
          or other health professions under Health Professions 
          Stipend Program (sec. 553).............................   334
        Clarification of discharge or release triggering 
          delimiting period for use of educational assistance 
          benefit for reserve component members supporting 
          contingency operations and other operations (sec. 554).   334
        Payment by the service academies of certain expenses 
          associated with participation in activities fostering 
          international cooperation (sec. 555)...................   334
    Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education Matters............   335
        Continuation of authority to assist local educational 
          agencies that benefit dependents of members of the 
          armed forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees (sec. 561)...................................   335
        Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 
          562)...................................................   335
        Transition of military dependent students among local 
          educational agencies (sec. 563)........................   335
    Subtitle F--Military Family Readiness........................   335
        Authority for education and training for military spouses 
          pursuing portable careers (sec. 571)...................   335
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   336
        Department of Defense policy on the prevention of 
          suicides by members of the armed forces (sec. 581).....   336
        Relief for losses incurred as a result of certain 
          injustices or errors of the Department of Defense (sec. 
          582)...................................................   336
        Paternity leave for members of the armed forces (sec. 
          583)...................................................   337
        Enhancement of authorities on participation of members of 
          the armed forces in international sports competitions 
          (sec. 584).............................................   337
        Pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance retention 
          of members of the armed forces (sec. 585)..............   337
        Prohibition on interference in independent legal advice 
          by the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint 
          Chiefs of Staff (sec. 586).............................   338
    Items of Special Interest....................................   338
        Enhancing family support for the National Guard and 
          reserve................................................   338
        Financial literacy.......................................   339
        Legislative fellows from the Department of Defense.......   339
        Premium conversion and flexible spending account options 
          for service members....................................   340
        Report on implementation of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 
          Program................................................   340
        Secretary of Defense review of deferment from deployment 
          policy following birth of a child......................   341
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits..............   343
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   343
        Fiscal year 2009 increase in military basic pay (sec. 
          601)...................................................   343
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   343
        Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities 
          for Reserve forces (sec. 611)..........................   343
        Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities 
          for health care professionals (sec. 612)...............   343
        Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 
          nuclear officers (sec. 613)............................   343
        Extension of authorities relating to payment of other 
          bonuses and special pays (sec. 614)....................   344
        Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral 
          bonuses (sec. 615).....................................   344
        Permanent extension of prohibition on charges for meals 
          received at military treatment facilities by members 
          receiving continuous care (sec. 616)...................   344
        Accession and retention bonuses for the recruitment and 
          retention of psychologists for the armed forces (sec. 
          617)...................................................   344
        Authority for extension of maximum length of service 
          agreements for special pay for nuclear-qualified 
          officers extending period of active service (sec. 618).   344
        Incentive pay for members of precommissioning programs 
          pursuing foreign language proficiency (sec. 619).......   345
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   345
        Shipment of family pets during evacuation of personnel 
          (sec. 631).............................................   345
        Special weight allowance for transportation of 
          professional books and equipment for spouses (sec. 632)   345
        Travel and transportation allowances for members of the 
          reserve components of the armed forces on leave for 
          suspension of training (sec. 633)......................   345
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits................   346
        Presentation of burial flag to the surviving spouse and 
          children of members of the armed forces who die in 
          service (sec. 641).....................................   346
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   346
        Separation pay, transitional health care, and 
          transitional commissary and exchange benefits for 
          members of the armed forces separated under surviving 
          son or daughter policy (sec. 651)......................   346
    Items of Special Interest....................................   346
        Aviation career incentive pay............................   346
        Travel allowances for family of service members with 
          serious psychiatric conditions.........................   346
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................   349
    Subtitle A--TRICARE Program..................................   349
        Calculation of monthly premiums for coverage under 
          TRICARE Reserve Select after 2008 (sec. 701)...........   349
    Subtitle B--Other Health Care Authorities....................   349
        Enhancement of medical and dental readiness of members of 
          the armed forces (sec. 711)............................   349
        Additional authority for studies and demonstration 
          projects relating to delivery of health and medical 
          care (sec. 712)........................................   351
        Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for 
          dependents of members assigned to very remote locations 
          outside the continental United States (sec. 713).......   351
    Subtitle C--Other Health Care Matters........................   351
        Repeal of prohibition on conversion of military medical 
          and dental positions to civilian medical and dental 
          positions (sec. 721)...................................   351
    Items of Special Interest....................................   352
        Chiropractic care for members of the armed forces........   352
        Comptroller General study on medical personnel 
          requirements, shortfalls, and actions needed to resolve 
          medical personnel shortages............................   353
        Mental health and traumatic brain injury.................   354
        Modification of security clearance questionnaire to 
          reduce stigma for seeking mental health care...........   354
        Organ and tissue donor program...........................   355
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and 
  Related Matters................................................   357
    Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition 
      Programs...................................................   357
        Inclusion of major subprograms to major defense 
          acquisition programs under acquisition reporting 
          requirements (sec. 801)................................   357
        Inclusion of certain major information technology 
          investments in acquisition oversight authorities for 
          Major Automated Information System programs (sec. 802).   357
        Configuration steering boards for cost control under 
          major defense acquisition programs (sec. 803)..........   357
    Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management................   358
        Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the 
          Department of Defense by certain non-defense agencies 
          (sec. 811).............................................   358
        Contingency contracting corps (sec. 812).................   359
        Expedited review and validation of urgent requirements 
          documents (sec. 813)...................................   359
        Incorporation of energy efficiency requirements into key 
          performance parameters for fuel consuming systems (sec. 
          814)...................................................   359
    Subtitle C--Amendments Relating to General Contracting 
      Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations...................   360
        Multiyear procurement authority for the Department of 
          Defense for the purchase of alternative and synthetic 
          fuels (sec. 821).......................................   360
        Modification and extension of pilot program for 
          transition to follow-on contracts under authority to 
          carry out certain prototype projects (sec. 822)........   361
        Exclusion of certain factors in consideration of cost 
          advantages of offers for certain Department of Defense 
          contracts (sec. 823)...................................   361
    Subtitle D--Department of Defense Contractor Matters.........   361
        Database for Department of Defense contracting officers 
          and suspension and debarment officials (sec. 831)......   361
        Ethics safeguards for employees under certain contracts 
          for the performance of acquisition functions closely 
          associated with inherently governmental functions (sec. 
          832)...................................................   361
        Information for Department of Defense contractor 
          employees on their whistleblower rights (sec. 833).....   362
    Subtitle E--Matters Relating to Iraq and Afghanistan.........   362
        Performance by private security contractors of inherently 
          governmental functions in an area of combat operations 
          (sec. 841).............................................   362
        Additional contractor requirements and responsibilities 
          relating to alleged crimes by or against contractor 
          personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 842)...........   363
        Clarification and modification of authorities relating to 
          the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and 
          Afghanistan (sec. 843).................................   364
        Comprehensive audit of spare parts purchases and depot 
          overhaul and maintenance of equipment for operations in 
          Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 844)........................   364
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   364
        Expedited hiring authority for the defense acquisition 
          workforce (sec. 851)...................................   364
        Specification of Secretary of Defense as ``Secretary 
          concerned'' for purposes of licensing of intellectual 
          property for the defense agencies and defense field 
          activities (sec. 852)..................................   365
        Repeal of requirements relating to the military system 
          essential item breakout list (sec. 853)................   365
    Items of Special Interest....................................   365
        Contracting officer representatives......................   365
        Database and after-action reports for multiyear contracts   366
        Past performance information.............................   366
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management......   369
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   369
        Modification of status of Assistant to the Secretary of 
          Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense 
          Programs (sec. 901)....................................   369
        Participation of Deputy Chief Management Officer of the 
          Department of Defense on Defense Business System 
          Management Committee (sec. 902)........................   369
        Repeal of obsolete limitations on management headquarters 
          personnel (sec. 903)...................................   369
        General Counsel to the Inspector General of the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 904).......................   369
        Assignment of forces to the United States Northern 
          Command with primary mission of management of the 
          consequences of an incident in the United States 
          homeland involving a chemical, biological, 
          radiological, or nuclear device, or high-yield 
          explosives (sec. 905)..................................   370
        Business transformation initiatives for the military 
          departments (sec. 906).................................   370
    Subtitle B--Space Matters....................................   371
        Space posture review (sec. 911)..........................   371
    Subtitle C--Defense Intelligence Matters.....................   371
        Requirement for officers of the armed forces on active 
          duty in certain intelligence positions (sec. 921)......   371
        Transfer of management of Intelligence Systems Support 
          Office (sec. 922)......................................   372
        Program on advanced sensor applications (sec. 923).......   372
Title X--General Provisions......................................   375
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   375
        General transfer authority (sec. 1001)...................   375
        Incorporation into Act of tables in the report of the 
          Committee on Armed Services of the Senate (sec. 1002)..   375
        United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets 
          in fiscal year 2009 (sec. 1003)........................   376
    Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   376
        Government rights in designs of Department of Defense 
          vessels, boats, craft, and components developed using 
          public funds (sec. 1011)...............................   376
        Reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy mess 
          operations (sec. 1012).................................   376
    Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   377
        Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide 
          support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-
          terrorism activities (sec. 1021).......................   377
        Two-year extension of authority for use of funds for 
          unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in 
          Colombia (sec. 1022)...................................   378
    Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   378
        Procurement by State and local governments of equipment 
          for homeland security and emergency response activities 
          through the Department of Defense (sec. 1031)..........   378
        Enhancement of the capacity of the United States 
          Government to conduct complex operations (sec. 1032)...   378
        Crediting of admiralty claim receipts for damage to 
          property funded from a Department of Defense working 
          capital fund (sec. 1033)...............................   379
        Minimum annual purchase requirements for airlift services 
          from carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air 
          Fleet (sec. 1034)......................................   379
        Termination date of base contract for the Navy-Marine 
          Corps Intranet (sec. 1035).............................   379
        Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor 
          personnel (sec. 1036)..................................   380
        Notification of Committees on Armed Services with respect 
          to certain nonproliferation and proliferation 
          activities (sec. 1037).................................   381
        Sense of Congress on nuclear weapons management (sec. 
          1038)..................................................   381
        Sense of Congress on Joint Department of Defense-Federal 
          Aviation Administration Executive Committee on Conflict 
          and Dispute Resolution (sec. 1039).....................   381
        Sense of Congress on sale of new outsize cargo, strategic 
          lift aircraft for civilian use (sec. 1040).............   382
    Subtitle E--Reports..........................................   383
        Repeal of requirement to submit certain annual reports to 
          Congress regarding allied contributions to the common 
          defense (sec. 1051)....................................   383
        Report on detention operations in Iraq (sec. 1052).......   383
        Strategic plan to enhance the role of the National Guard 
          and Reserves in the national defense (sec. 1053).......   383
        Review of nonnuclear prompt global strike concept 
          demonstrations (sec. 1054).............................   384
        Review of bandwidth capacity requirements of the 
          Department of Defense and the intelligence community 
          (sec. 1055)............................................   384
    Subtitle F--Wounded Warrior Matters..........................   385
        Modification of utilization of veterans' presumption of 
          sound condition in establishing eligibility of members 
          of the armed forces for retirement for disability (sec. 
          1061)..................................................   385
        Inclusion of service members in inpatient status in 
          wounded warrior policies and protections (sec. 1062)...   385
        Clarification of certain information sharing between the 
          Department of Defense and Department of Veterans 
          Affairs for wounded warrior purposes (sec. 1063).......   385
        Additional responsibilities for the wounded warrior 
          resource center (sec. 1064)............................   385
        Responsibility for the center of excellence in the 
          prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and 
          rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury to conduct 
          pilot programs on treatment approaches for traumatic 
          brain injury (sec. 1065)...............................   386
        Center of excellence in the mitigation, treatment, and 
          rehabilitation of traumatic extremity injuries and 
          amputations (sec. 1066)................................   386
        Three-year extension of Senior Oversight Committee with 
          respect to wounded warrior matters (sec. 1067).........   387
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   387
        Military salute for the flag during the national anthem 
          by members of the armed forces not in uniform and by 
          veterans (sec. 1081)...................................   387
        Modification of deadlines for standards required for 
          entry to military installations in the United States 
          (sec. 1082)............................................   387
    Items of Special Interest....................................   387
        Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
          Senate.................................................   387
        Fully interoperable electronic health information for the 
          Department of Defense and Department of Veterans 
          Affairs................................................   388
        Interagency coordination and participation in post-
          conflict stability and reconstruction operations.......   388
        National cyber security initiative.......................   389
        Nuclear security.........................................   391
        Nutrition and dietary care for seriously ill and injured 
          service members........................................   391
        Recovery care coordinators and medical care case managers 
          for seriously wounded and ill service members..........   392
        Refugee crisis in Iraq...................................   392
        United States Africa Command.............................   393
Title XI--Civilian Personnel Matters.............................   395
        Department of Defense strategic human capital plans (sec. 
          1101)..................................................   395
        Conditional increase in authorized number of Defense 
          Intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel (sec. 
          1102)..................................................   395
        Enhancement of authorities relating to additional 
          positions under the National Security Personnel System 
          (sec. 1103)............................................   396
        Expedited hiring authority for health care professionals 
          of the Department of Defense (sec. 1104)...............   396
        Election of insurance coverage by federal civilian 
          employees deployed in support of a contingency 
          operation (sec. 1105)..................................   396
        Permanent extension of Department of Defense voluntary 
          reduction in force authority (sec. 1106)...............   397
        Four-year extension of authority to make lump sum 
          severance payments with respect to Department of 
          Defense employees (sec. 1107)..........................   397
        Authority to waive limitations on pay for federal 
          civilian employees working overseas under areas of 
          United States Central Command (sec. 1108)..............   397
        Technical amendment relating to definition of 
          professional accounting position for purposes of 
          certification and credentialing standards (sec. 1109)..   398
Title XII--Matters Relating to Foreign Nations...................   399
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   399
        Increase in amount available for costs of education and 
          training of foreign military forces under Regional 
          Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (sec. 
          1201)..................................................   399
        Authority for distribution to certain foreign personnel 
          of education and training materials and information 
          technology to enhance military interoperability with 
          the armed forces (sec. 1202)...........................   399
        Extension and expansion of authority for support of 
          special operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1203).....   399
        Modification and extension of authorities relating to 
          program to build the capacity of foreign military 
          forces (sec. 1204).....................................   400
        Extension of authority and increased funding for security 
          and stabilization assistance (sec. 1205)...............   401
        Four-year extension of temporary authority to use 
          acquisition and cross-servicing agreements to lend 
          military equipment for personnel protection and 
          survivability (sec. 1206)..............................   401
        Authority for use of funds for non-conventional assisted 
          recovery capabilities (sec. 1207)......................   402
    Subtitle B--Department of Defense Participation in Bilateral, 
      Multilateral, and Regional Cooperation Programs............   403
        Availability across fiscal years of funds for military-
          to-military contacts and comparable activities (sec. 
          1211)..................................................   403
        Enhancement of authorities relating to Department of 
          Defense regional centers for security studies (sec. 
          1212)..................................................   403
        Payment of personnel expenses for multilateral 
          cooperation programs (sec. 1213).......................   403
        Participation of the Department of Defense in 
          multinational military centers of excellence (sec. 
          1214)..................................................   403
    Subtitle C--Other Authorities and Limitations................   404
        Waiver of certain sanctions against North Korea (sec. 
          1221)..................................................   404
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................   404
        Extension and modification of updates on report on claims 
          relating to the bombing of the Labelle Discotheque 
          (sec. 1231)............................................   404
        Report on utilization of certain global partnership 
          authorities (sec. 1232)................................   405
Title XIII--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of the 
  Former Soviet Union............................................   407
        Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 
          and funds (sec. 1301)..................................   407
        Funding allocations (sec. 1302)..........................   407
Title XIV--Other Authorizations..................................   409
    Summary and explanation of tables............................   409
     Subtitle A--Military Programs..................................412
        Working capital funds (sec. 1401)........................   412
        National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)................   412
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1403).......................   412
        Chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense (sec. 
          1404)..................................................   412
        Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-
          wide (sec. 1405).......................................   412
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406)....................   412
        Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings from 
          lower inflation (sec. 1407)............................   412
    Subtitle B--Armed Forces Retirement Home.....................   413
        Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces 
          Retirement Home (sec. 1421)............................   413
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   413
        Responsibilities for chemical demilitarization Citizens' 
          Advisory Commissions in Colorado and Kentucky (sec. 
          1431)..................................................   413
        Modification of definition of ``Department of Defense 
          Sealift Vessel'' for purposes of the National Defense 
          Sealift Fund (sec. 1432)...............................   413
    Budget Items.................................................   414
        LHA(R) advance procurement and research and development..   414
        Traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder 
          initiative.............................................   414
        Department of Defense Inspector General..................   414
    Item of Special Interest.....................................   415
        Completion of destruction of chemical weapons stockpile..   415
Title XV--Authorization of Additional Appropriations for 
  Operations in Afghanistan......................................   417
    Overview.....................................................   417
    Explanation of Tables........................................   417
        Purpose (sec. 1501)......................................   420
        Army procurement (sec. 1502).............................   420
        Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503)............   420
        Air Force procurement (sec. 1504)........................   420
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1505)   420
        Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1506)..........   420
        Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1507)..   420
        Operation and maintenance (sec. 1508)....................   420
        Military personnel (sec. 1509)...........................   421
        Working capital funds (sec. 1510)........................   421
        Other Department of Defense programs (sec. 1511).........   421
        Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1512).............   421
        Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513).......   421
        Special transfer authority (sec. 1514)...................   421
        Limitation on use of funds (sec. 1515)...................   421
        Requirement for separate display of budget for 
          Afghanistan (sec. 1516)................................   422
Title XVI--Authorization of Additional Appropriations for 
  Operations in Iraq.............................................   423
    Overview.....................................................   423
    Explanation of Tables........................................   423
        Purpose (sec. 1601)......................................   426
        Army procurement (sec. 1602).............................   426
        Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1603)............   426
        Air Force procurement (sec. 1604)........................   426
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1605)   426
        Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1606)..........   427
        Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1607)..   427
        Operation and maintenance (sec. 1608)....................   427
        Military personnel (sec. 1609)...........................   427
        Working capital funds (sec. 1610)........................   427
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1611).......................   427
        Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1612)............................   427
        Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1613)....................   428
        Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1614).......   428
        Limitation on use of funds (sec. 1615)...................   428
        Contributions by the Government of Iraq to large-scale 
          infrastructure projects, combined operations, and other 
          activities in Iraq (sec. 1616).........................   428
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations.................   429
    Summary and explanation of funding tables....................   429
        Short title (sec. 2001)..................................   446
        Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 
          specified by law (sec. 2002)...........................   446
        Effective date (sec. 2003)...............................   446
Title XXI--Army..................................................   447
    Summary......................................................   447
        Authorized Army construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2101)...................................   447
        Family housing (sec. 2102)...............................   447
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)   448
        Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)........   448
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 
          projects (sec. 2105)...................................   448
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2006 
          project (sec. 2106)....................................   448
Title XXII--Navy.................................................   449
    Summary......................................................   449
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2201)...................................   449
        Family housing (sec. 2202)...............................   449
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)   450
        Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........   450
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2005 project inside the United States (sec. 2205).   450
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2007 projects inside the United States (sec. 2206)   450
Title XXIII--Air Force...........................................   451
    Summary......................................................   451
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2301)...................................   451
        Family housing (sec. 2302)...............................   451
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)   451
        Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)...   451
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 
          projects (sec. 2305)...................................   452
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 
          projects (sec. 2306)...................................   452
    Budget Item..................................................   452
        Planning and design, Air Force...........................   452
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies.....................................   453
    Summary......................................................   453
    Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations....................   453
        Authorized defense agencies construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2401).......................   453
        Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402).................   453
        Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 
          2403)..................................................   453
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2007 project (sec. 2404)..........................   454
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2006 
          project (sec. 2405)....................................   454
    Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations.........   454
        Authorized chemical demilitarization program construction 
          and land acquisition projects (sec. 2411)..............   454
        Authorization of appropriations, chemical 
          demilitarization construction, defense-wide (sec. 2412)   454
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 1997 project (sec. 2413)..........................   454
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2000 project (sec. 2414)..........................   455
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
  Program........................................................   457
    Summary......................................................   457
        Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2501)...................................   457
        Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........   457
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities..................   459
    Summary......................................................   459
        Authorized Army National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2601).......................   459
        Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2602)...................................   459
        Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
          construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603).   459
        Authorized Air National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2604).......................   459
        Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2605).......................   459
        Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 
          2606)..................................................   460
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 
          projects (sec. 2607)...................................   460
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 
          project (sec. 2608)....................................   460
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2008 project (sec. 2609)..........................   460
    Budget Items.................................................   460
        Planning and design, Army National Guard.................   460
        Planning and design, Air National Guard..................   461
        Planning and design, Air Force Reserve...................   461
Title XXVII--Base Closure and Realignment Activities.............   463
    Summary and explanation of tables............................   463
        Authorization of appropriations for base closure and 
          realignment activities funded through Department of 
          Defense base closure account 1990 (sec. 2701)..........   472
        Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded 
          through Department of Defense base closure account 2005 
          (sec. 2702)............................................   472
        Authorization of appropriations for base closure and 
          realignment activities funded through Department of 
          Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2703)..........   472
        Modification of annual base closure and realignment 
          reporting requirements (sec. 2704).....................   472
        Technical corrections regarding authorized cost and scope 
          of work variations for military construction and 
          military family housing projects related to base 
          closures and realignments (sec. 2705)..................   472
Title XXVIII--Military Construction General Provisions...........   473
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing Changes............................................   473
        Increase in threshold for unspecified minor military 
          construction projects (sec. 2801)......................   473
        Authority to use operation and maintenance funds for 
          construction projects outside the United States (sec. 
          2802)..................................................   473
        Improved oversight and accountability for military 
          housing privatization initiative projects (sec. 2803)..   473
        Leasing of military family housing to Secretary of 
          Defense (sec. 2804)....................................   474
        Cost-benefit analysis of dissolution of Patrick Family 
          Housing LLC (sec. 2805)................................   474
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   475
        Participation in conservation banking programs (sec. 
          2811)..................................................   475
        Clarification of congressional reporting requirements for 
          certain real property transactions (sec. 2812).........   475
        Modification of land management restrictions applicable 
          to Utah national defense lands (sec. 2813).............   475
    Subtitle C--Land Conveyances.................................   476
        Transfer of proceeds from property conveyance, Marine 
          Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia (sec. 2821)......   476
    Subtitle D--Energy Security..................................   476
        Expansion of authority of the military departments to 
          develop energy on military lands (sec. 2831)...........   476
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   476
        Report on application of force protection and anti-
          terrorism standards to gates and entry points on 
          military installations (sec. 2841).....................   476
    Items of Special Interest....................................   477
        Defense Access Roads criteria............................   477
        Military construction reprogrammings.....................   478
Title XXIX--War-Related Military Construction Authorizations.....   481
    Summary......................................................   481
    Subtitle A--Fiscal Year 2008 Projects........................   484
        Authorized Army construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2901)...................................   484
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2902)...................................   484
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2903)...................................   484
        Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2008 
          Army projects (sec. 2904)..............................   484
    Subtitle B--Fiscal Year 2009 Projects........................   485
        Authorized Army construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2911)...................................   485
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2912)...................................   485
        Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes 
          relating to Iraq (sec. 2913)...........................   485
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations 
  and Other Authorizations.......................................   487
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs......   487
    Overview.....................................................   487
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   510
        National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101).....   510
            Weapons activities...................................   510
            Directed stockpile work..............................   510
            Campaigns............................................   510
            Readiness in the technical base......................   511
            Secure transportation asset..........................   511
            Nuclear weapons incident response....................   511
            Safeguards and security..............................   512
            Facilities and infrastructure........................   512
            Environmental projects and operations and 
              transformation disposition.........................   512
            Stockpile surveillance testing.......................   512
            Construction projects................................   513
            Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs............   513
            Nonproliferation and verification research and 
              development........................................   514
            Nonproliferation and international security..........   514
            International nuclear materials and cooperation......   515
            Fissile materials disposition........................   515
            Naval reactors.......................................   515
            Office of the Administrator..........................   515
        Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................   515
        Other defense activities (sec. 3103).....................   516
        Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)...............   516
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   516
        Modifications of functions of Administrator for Nuclear 
          Security to include elimination of surplus fissile 
          materials usable for nuclear weapons (sec. 3111).......   516
        Report on compliance with Design Basis Threat issued by 
          the Department of Energy in 2005 (sec. 3112)...........   516
        Modification of submittal of reports on inadvertent 
          releases of restricted data (sec. 3113)................   517
        Nonproliferation scholarship and fellowship program (sec. 
          3114)..................................................   517
        Review of and reports on Global Initiatives for 
          Proliferation Prevention program (sec. 3115)...........   517
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.............   519
        Authorization (sec. 3201)................................   519
    Legislative Requirements.....................................   561
        Departmental Recommendations.............................   561
        Committee Action.........................................   561
        Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................   561
        Regulatory Impact........................................   561
        Changes in Existing Law..................................   561
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-335

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


AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES 
   OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR 
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 
         STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                  May 12, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 3001]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 
2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such 
fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    This bill would:
          (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) 
        research, development, test and evaluation, (c) 
        operation and maintenance and the revolving and 
        management funds of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2009;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each 
        military active duty component of the Armed Forces for 
        fiscal year 2009;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2009;
          (4) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (5) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement and research, development, test 
        and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide 
        certain additional legislative authority, and make 
        certain changes to existing law;
          (6) authorize appropriations for military 
        construction programs of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2009; and
          (7) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        2009.

Committee overview

    The United States armed forces have been involved in armed 
conflict for more than 6 years--6\1/2\ years in Afghanistan and 
5 years in Iraq. Whether fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, 
delivering humanitarian assistance to the victims of natural 
disasters in Asia or Africa, training foreign national forces 
to combat terrorism in their own countries, or assisting State 
and federal agencies responding to emergencies here at home, 
the men and women of our armed forces, both active and reserve, 
are serving honorably and courageously to promote and defend 
our Nation's interests. They do so often at great personal risk 
and significant sacrifice to themselves and their families.
    After more than 6 years of war, our military, particularly 
our ground forces, are severely stressed. The Vice Chief of 
Staff of the Army, General Richard A. Cody, in testimony before 
the Readiness and Management Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Armed Services on April 1, 2008 stated, ``Our readiness, quite 
frankly, is being consumed as fast as we can build it'' and 
``I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be at where it is 
today.''
    Moreover, the requirement for large numbers of forces in 
Iraq, coupled with an insufficient contribution from North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member nations, has left 
Afghanistan with a shortage of combatants and trainers. As the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen 
noted on April 15, 2008, ``So until we come down in numbers of 
brigades in Iraq, the brigade-size requirements in Afghanistan 
just aren't going to be met. That link is very direct.''
    To date in this Second Session of the 110th Congress, the 
Committee on Armed Services has conducted 30 hearings and 
numerous briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2009 and related defense matters. In order to provide a 
framework for the consideration of these matters, the committee 
identified seven priorities to guide its work on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. These 
priorities are:
    1. Provide fair compensation and first rate health care, 
and improve the quality of life of the men and women in the 
armed forces (active duty, National Guard and reserves) and 
their families.
    2. Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, 
training, technology, equipment (especially force protection) 
and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    3. Seek to reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking 
action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness 
of the military services to conduct the full range of their 
assigned missions.
    4. Improve the efficiency of Department of Defense programs 
and activities, and apply the savings toward high-priority 
programs.
    5. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter 
nontraditional threats, including terrorism and the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
    6. Promote the transformation of the armed forces to deal 
with the threats of the 21st century.
    7. Ensure aggressive and thorough oversight of the 
Department's programs and activities to ensure proper 
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant 
laws and regulations.

Explanation of funding summary

    The administration's budget request for the national 
defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was 
$542.5 billion for the so-called ``base'' budget, which 
excludes the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This 
amount includes scorekeeping adjustments by the Congressional 
Budget Office. The President has also requested an additional 
$70.0 billion in emergency defense funding for operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. The combined total requested by the 
President for the national defense budget function was $612.5 
billion.
    The following table summarizes both the direct 
authorizations and the equivalent budget authority levels for 
fiscal year 2009 defense programs. The columns relating to the 
authorization request do not include funding for items that are 
not within the jurisdiction of this committee or that do not 
require an annual authorization. The table also includes the 
authorization for spending from the trust fund of the Armed 
Forces Retirement Home, which is outside the national defense 
budget function.
    Funding for all programs in the national defense function 
is reflected in the columns related to the budget authority 
request and the total budget authority implication of the 
authorizations in this bill. The committee recommends funding 
for national defense programs totaling $612.5 billion in budget 
authority, which is consistent with the President's budget 
request and with the funding levels for national defense in the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (S. 
Con. Res. 70) adopted by the Senate on March 13, 2008.
    In order to clearly identify the cost of war, funding for 
operations in Afghanistan is contained in title XV of this Act, 
and funding for operations in Iraq is contained in title XVI of 
this Act. Titles XV and XVI authorize funding for personnel, 
operation and maintenance, procurement, health care, working 
capital funds, and other costs normally funded in division A of 
this Act. Titles XV and XVI authorize $69.5 billion for 
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Title XXIX of this act authorizes an additional $500.0 
million for war-related military construction, in particular, 
for additional warrior transition units to care for injured 
military personnel, whether such illness or injury resulted 
from operations in Iraq or Afghanistan or from other 
operations.
    In total, this bill authorizes $70.0 billion in war-related 
funding, the same amount requested by the President and 
approved by the Senate in the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget for Fiscal Year 2009.
    In accordance with views and estimates of this committee to 
the Senate Committee on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, the 
committee bill does not designate any of the funding authorized 
by this Act as emergency spending. The committee continues to 
believe that the expected costs of longstanding operations such 
as those in Iraq and Afghanistan should be included in the 
budget request and should not be treated as emergencies.
    The committee also continues to believe the financial cost 
of war should be as transparent as possible. In an effort to 
promote and enhance such transparency, the committee bill 
allocates funding to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq 
separately.
    The committee notes that on February 8, 2008, Secretary of 
Defense Robert Gates stated that, ``I worry that for many 
Europeans the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are confused . . 
. I think that they combine the two . . . Many of them, I 
think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project 
that to Afghanistan, and do not understand the very different--
for them--the very different kind of threat.'' The committee 
shares this concern, and has included a provision that would 
require future budget or supplemental requests to allocate 
funds separately for operations in Afghanistan.
    The $70.0 billion requested by the President for these 
operations in the budget contains no supporting detail at the 
service, account, or line-item level, nor does it allocate such 
funding between operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Furthermore, this $70.0 billion is a ``placeholder'' that does 
not purport to represent the full cost of these operations 
during fiscal year 2009. While the committee understands that 
projecting costs of ongoing operations where force levels are 
changing cannot be an exact science, the committee does believe 
that by omitting any supporting details and by not including a 
realistic estimate of the full year cost of these operations, 
the budget request failed to fully comply with the requirements 
of section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
    The committee anticipates a future supplemental request for 
additional funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
will consider such a request when it becomes available.


            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Explanation of tables
    The following tables provide the program-level detailed 
guidance for the funding authorized in title I of this Act. The 
tables also display the funding requested by the administration 
in the fiscal year 2009 budget request for procurement 
programs, and indicate those programs for which the committee 
either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    These tables are incorporated by reference into this Act as 
provided in section 1002 of this Act. The Department of Defense 
may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the 
tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set 
forth in budget justification documents of the Department of 
Defense) without a reprogramming action in accordance with 
established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 
changes to the budget request are made without prejudice.


                       Subtitle B--Army Programs


Stryker Mobile Gun System (sec. 111)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, through the Director of Operational Test 
and Evaluation (DOT&E), to ensure that the Stryker Mobile Gun 
System (MGS) is subject to testing to confirm the efficacy of 
any actions taken to mitigate operational effectiveness, 
suitability, and survivability deficiencies identified in 
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation and Live Fire Test and 
Evaluation. The provision would also require the Secretary of 
the Army to provide quarterly updates to the congressional 
defense committees on the status of the corrective measures and 
expand section 117(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to future 
fiscal years.
    In January 2007, the Army decided to deploy the Stryker MGS 
with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) that was deploying 
to Iraq. This was done despite the DOT&E's concern that planned 
operational and live fire ballistic test and evaluation were 
not complete and were not yet adequate to support a final 
assessment of MGS crew and system survivability, operational 
effectiveness, and operational suitability.
    In response to the Army's decision, Public Law 110-181 
included a provision prohibiting the obligation or expenditure 
of funds for the procurement of the Stryker MGS until 30 days 
after the Secretary of the Army certifies to Congress that the 
Stryker MGS is operationally effective, suitable, and 
survivable for its anticipated deployment missions or until the 
Secretary of Defense waives the limitation on MGS funding by 
determining that further procurement of the Stryker MGS is in 
the national security interest of the United States.
    In February 2008, DOT&E provided a report to Congress on 
the results of the operational and live fire ballistic test and 
evaluation events. The report confirmed the January 2007 
concerns of DOT&E's early fielding report and concluded that 
the Stryker MGS continues to have problems associated with its 
survivability, operational effectiveness, and operational 
suitability. More specifically, the February 2008 report cited 
mission equipment package failures, `fightability' shortfalls, 
and, even more troubling, unique survivability shortfalls that 
place MGS crews at greater risk than crews in other Stryker 
variants.
    The committee remains troubled by the Army's decision to 
deploy low-rate initial production models to Iraq, and believes 
that no more Stryker MGS's should be deployed until the Army 
takes the actions necessary to make the Stryker MGS 
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable. For this 
reason, the provision recommended by the committee would extend 
the limitation in section 117(a) on the procurement of 
additional Stryker MGS units until appropriate action is taken.

Procurement of small arms (sec. 112)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Army to submit, within 90 days of enactment of 
this act, a report on the small arms Capabilities Based 
Assessment conducted by the Army's Training and Doctrine 
Command. This assessment is overdue. The Army had indicated to 
the committee that it would complete the small arms 
Capabilities Based Assessment by August 2007 and failed to do 
so. Accordingly, the committee recommends withholding authority 
to obligate more than 75 percent of the aggregate amount 
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2009 and 
available for the Guardrail Common Sensor until the report has 
been delivered.
    In the event that the Capabilities Based Assessment 
identifies gaps in current small arms capability that require a 
new individual weapon, the committee recommends that the 
acquisition of such weapons should result from a full and open 
competition. The committee further recommends that the 
Secretary of Defense submit a report on the feasibility and 
advisability of conducting a full and open competition for 
carbine-type rifles.

                           Budget Items--Army


Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list

    The Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list 
for fiscal year 2009 addresses Army National Guard equipment 
shortfalls required to accomplish its dual responsibilities--to 
the States for crisis response and homeland security and to the 
nation for the defense of the United States and its interests. 
The items requested such as communications equipment, vehicles, 
driver vision enhancement equipment, night vision goggles, and 
water purification equipment will significantly enhance the 
Guard's ability to respond to contingencies at home.
    The committee welcomes this clear and substantial 
commitment on the part of the Army to restore and improve the 
homeland defense capabilities and readiness of the National 
Guard. Accordingly, the committee recommends a total increase 
in Army procurement of $391.2 million for dual-purpose 
equipment in support of National Guard readiness.
    The specific account increases are as follows--the 
committee recommends an increase of $369.5 million in Other 
Procurement, Army, which includes: $28.8 million for additional 
night vision devices; $15.0 million for super high frequency 
terminals; $4.0 million for tactical satellite equipment 
upgrades; $5.9 million for life cycle software support; $5.9 
million for additional automatic identification systems; $5.9 
million for additional transportation coordinator's automated 
information for movement system equipment; $5.9 million for 
combat service support communications equipment; $1.2 million 
for additional water purification systems; $22.8 million for 
commercial off-the-shelf tactical radio equipment; $52.5 
million for additional driver vision enhancement systems; $5.4 
million for additional field feeding systems; $43.1 million for 
additional heavy equipment transporter systems; $300,000 for 
additional logistics automation systems; $1.4 million for 
medical communication and combat casualty care equipment; $4.3 
million for additional combat medical support equipment; $16.5 
million for additional defense advanced Global Positioning 
System receivers; $2.4 million for additional spares; $1.0 
million for additional graders; $3.0 million for additional 
skid steer loaders; $1.0 million for additional scrapers; $1.0 
million for additional water distributors; $1.0 million for 
additional engineer mission module water distributors; $2.0 
million for additional loaders; $2.0 million for additional 
tractors; $1.0 million for additional cranes; $8.0 million for 
additional high mobility engineer excavators; $1.0 million for 
construction equipment; $80.7 million for additional palletized 
loading systems; and $44.6 million for additional tactical 
electric generators.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $19.6 million 
in Aircraft Procurement, Army, which includes: $11.3 million 
for additional avionics navigation equipment; $249,000 for 
avionics support equipment; $2.4 million for aircrew integrated 
systems; $5.5 million for air traffic control equipment; 
$116,000 for additional avionics and airborne instrumentation 
equipment; and $2,000 for high frequency radio equipment.
    In addition, the committee recommends an increase of $2.2 
million in weapons and tracked combat vehicles for additional 
small arms.
    Each of the committee's recommended increases is reflected 
in title I of the Army procurement tables.

Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter

    The budget request included $358.8 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army (APA) for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter 
(ARH). The committee appreciates the operational necessity of 
replacing the aging OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and replacing combat 
losses from the force structure. The committee has in the past 
supported the Army's efforts to get the ARH program on track. 
However, the committee believes that the Army is pursuing an 
overly ambitious ARH development and fielding program, given 
performance problems by the contractor. Decisions regarding the 
acquisition approach and schedule for the ARH program have been 
delayed by at least half a year, with no change in the 
procurement program. The committee also notes that the Defense 
Acquisition Board will meet in July 2008 to consider another 
restructuring of this program. Such an ambitious program 
exposes the Army to significant cost, performance, and schedule 
risk, and may not result in fielding this capability to the 
warfighter any sooner.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 
million in APA for procurement of ARH.

Forward-looking infrared radar systems

    The budget request included $10.9 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Army for utility helicopter modifications. This 
funding will procure and field a number of safety modifications 
for the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter. The committee recommends an 
increase of $3.0 million for the procurement of additional 
forward-looking infrared radar systems for the UH-60 Blackhawk 
helicopters.

Grenades Army

    The budget request included $71.6 million in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA) for grenades. The committee recommends 
an increase of $7.0 million in PAA for the procurement of 
additional grenades.

Radford Ammunition Plant upgrades

    The budget request included $187.4 million in Procurement 
of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial 
facilities. The committee is encouraged by the Army's 
commitment to its ammunition plants and supports plans to 
accelerate repair or modernization of these facilities to 
improve efficiency, safety, and reduce environmental risk. The 
committee is particularly concerned about modernization at 
Radford Army Ammunition Plant. Radford is the sole North 
American provider for many of the propellants and explosives 
used in munitions. The committee recommends an increase of 
$20.0 million in PAA for production, safety, and environmental 
upgrades at Radford Army Ammunition Plant.

Bomb line modernization

    The budget request included $187.4 million in Procurement 
of Ammunition, Army (PAA) for the provision of industrial 
facilities, but provided no funds for bomb line modernization 
at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma. The committee 
recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PAA for bomb line 
modernization.

Area Common User System Modernization

    The budget request included $85.3 million in Other 
Procurement, Army for the Warfighter Information Network--
Tactical (WIN-T) Area Common User System Modernization (ACUS-
Mod) program. This program is intended to provide ongoing and 
planned modifications, upgrades, and recapitalization of the 
Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) and Tri-Service Tactical 
(TRI-TAC) communications systems.
    According to the Army, there are currently 19 units with 
MSE and TRI-TAC equipment and each of these units is currently 
developing a disposition and turn-in plan for their equipment. 
However, some limited equipment purchases are required to 
support the single shelter switch, battlefield video 
teleconference, secure tactical fax, and tropo-scatter radio 
systems currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Given the rapidly declining number of units using the 
equipment provided by the ACUS-Mod program, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $42.0 million, leaving more than 50 
percent of the funding for the limited equipment purchases 
needed to support deployed equipment.

Army Global Command and Control System

    The budget request included $33.5 million in Other 
Procurement, Army for the Army Global Command and Control 
System (GCCS) program. The committee recommends a reduction of 
$4.7 million. Given constrained resources and the current 
fielding schedule for GCCS--Army, the committee believes 
procurement of Net-Enabled Command Capability equipment is not 
required at this time. Additional concerns about the GCCS--Army 
program are discussed in title II of this Act.

Information Technology Upgrades

    The budget request included $231.3 million in Other 
Procurement, Army for the Installation Information 
Infrastructure Modernization program (I3MP). The committee 
notes that high bandwidth connectivity provides military users 
with enhanced capabilities for data, voice, and video 
communications. These capabilities enable military 
organizations to better support deployed forces and other 
Department of Defense activities. The committee recommends an 
additional $3.0 million for hardware enhancements to the 
Defense Information System Network, especially to increase 
network geographic diversity and alternative data pathways.

Fido explosives detector

    The budget request included $46.8 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for ground standoff mine detection 
systems, but provided no funds for the Fido explosives 
detector. The Fido explosives detector is deployed and in use 
by units in Iraq to counter improvised explosive devices and 
land mines. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 
million in OPA for additional Fido explosives detectors.

Land Warrior

    The budget request did not include any funds in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Land Warrior system. The 
committee remains concerned that the Army has terminated this 
program despite significant investment, its promising test 
results, and its performance in combat.
    Last year the Department of Defense Director of Operational 
Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) assessed Land Warrior during tests 
with the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry, a Stryker unit preparing 
to deploy to Iraq. The Director, in a carefully worded report 
to this committee, determined that the system was ``on track'' 
to be operationally effective and suitable, even though it had 
not completed its Initial Operational Test. DOT&E also 
indicated that the system's test items could deploy to Iraq 
with the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry, the Army approved the 
plan, and the battalion is using the system effectively today.
    In testimony to the committee this year, the Army indicated 
that it will move forward with the program based on the test 
results and the feedback from the soldiers of the 4th 
Battalion, 9th Infantry. Additionally, the Army included in its 
fiscal year 2008 supplemental appropriation request sufficient 
funding to outfit a brigade combat team with Land Warrior 
equipment.
    The committee is encouraged by the Army's action and 
recommends accelerating the procurement of the system to 
include enough equipment to outfit a second brigade combat team 
preparing to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends an increase of $102.0 million in OPA for 
additional Land Warrior systems.

Combat Arms Training System

    The budget request included $218.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The 
Army is upgrading the Combined Arms Training System (CATS). 
Funds authorized would be used to upgrade 1,900 fielded systems 
and procure additional simulated weapons. The committee 
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in OPA for CATS.

Immersive Group Simulation Virtual Training System

    The budget request included $218.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices, but 
provided no funding for the Immersive Group Simulation Virtual 
Training System (IGS-VTS). The IGS-VTS is a fully immersive, 
interactive virtual reality platform that supports soldier 
vehicle training. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 
million in OPA for the IGS-VTS.

Joint Fires and Effects Trainer System

    The budget request included $3.1 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Call for Fire Trainer (CFFT), 
but included no funds for the Joint Fires and Effects Trainer 
System (JFETS) project. JFETS is a next-generation, virtual 
reality call for fire training simulation. The committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA for JFETS.

Laser collective combat advanced training system

    The budget request included $218.6 million in Procurement 
of Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) for non-system training 
devices, but included no funds for the laser collective combat 
advanced training system. This is a comprehensive laser-based 
marksmanship training system and is currently in use by units 
for urban operations, reflexive fire training, close-quarters 
marksmanship, and movement to contact drills. The committee 
recommends an increase of $8.0 million in OPA for the laser 
collective combat advanced training system.

Urban training center instrumentation

    The budget request included $218.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The 
committee notes that the Army's readiness and rotation training 
strategies call for units to accomplish more of their mission 
training and rehearsals at their local training areas and 
facilities. The Army is using several technologies to increase 
the flexibility and value of local training ranges and 
facilities including the Deployable Range Package, the 
Homestation Instrumentation System, and the Integrated Military 
Operations in Urbanized Terrain Training System. The committee 
recommends an increase of $2.9 million in OPA for the 
instrumentation of a regional urban operations training center.

Operator driving simulators

    The budget request included $218.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. 
Additional driving simulators would allow deploying soldiers to 
maximize their training time while providing a realistic 
experience without risk to personnel or equipment. The 
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in OPA for 
operator driving simulators.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

    The budget request included a total of $496.3 million for 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), of 
which $306.3 million was for the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) attack the network line of 
operation, $88.3 million was for the JIEDDO train the force 
line of operation, and $101.7 million was for the JIEDDO staff 
and infrastructure line of operation.
    The committee recommends a transfer of $496.3 million in 
the JIEDDF to titles XV and XVI of this Act. The committee 
remains supportive of JIEDDO, but believes that JIEDDO's 
expenses are war-related and should be accounted for in the 
appropriate war-related accounts in titles XV and XVI of this 
Act.
    Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) are the weapon of choice 
for terrorist organizations throughout the world because they 
provide high profile, lethal attacks that attract attention, 
provide propaganda, and expose vulnerabilities.
    The committee understands the Department of Defense is 
currently reviewing the JIEDDO mandate to determine how best to 
leverage JIEDDO's capability to counter a future unknown 
threat, recognizing that the enemy's current weapon of choice 
is the IED and that this threat will evolve. The committee 
welcomes this initiative by the Department and expects that the 
Department will be able to develop a more clear path forward 
for JIEDDO in the fiscal year 2010 budget submission.
    JIEDDO has been able to stand up quickly an organization 
capable of responding to the various IED threats that U.S. 
forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the committee is 
concerned that JIEDDO's expanding budget, manpower, and 
associated responsibilities have surpassed the Department's 
ability to adequately oversee the activities of JIEDDO in a 
manner that ensures no duplication of effort and the most 
effective delivery of equipment and capabilities to the 
warfighter.
    The Government Accountability Office and the Defense 
Science Board have raised similar concerns. If JIEDDO is to 
continue to implement material solutions across all Department 
components, the Department must reevaluate JIEDDO's authorities 
and determine whether JIEDDO should be a permanent organization 
and where it should be subordinated.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs



Authority for advanced procurement and construction of components for 
        the Virginia-class submarine program (sec. 131)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
multiyear authority provided in section 121 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181). The provision would modify section 121 to permit the 
Secretary of the Navy to enter into one or more contracts on 
the Virginia-class submarine program, for which authorization 
to enter a multiyear procurement contract was granted under 
section 121, that could include advance construction activities 
if he determines that such action would yield greater cost 
savings or construction efficiencies.
    The Navy believes that having such an option available 
could help achieve greater cost savings and production 
efficiencies as the program increases throughput to a rate of 
two boats per year in fiscal year 2011.

Refueling and complex overhaul of the USS Theodore Roosevelt (sec. 132)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide a 
one-time exemption to the normal full funding policy to allow 
for contracting of a 3-year incrementally-funded aircraft 
carrier refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) from the Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account. This language would provide 
the Navy with the authority to commence the refueling overhaul 
in fiscal year 2009. The Navy informs the committee that this 
would help level the workload at the shipyard and avoid an 
overhead increase of approximately $50.0 million across the 
future-years defense program. The Department of Defense has 
requested that this be a one-time authorization, not one to be 
extended into future years.

                              Budget Items


E-2D Advanced Hawkeye

    The budget request included $496.4 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN) for three E-2D Advanced Hawkeye 
aircraft. The E-2D aircraft will provide improved airborne 
early warning and surveillance capability to support carrier 
strike groups in naval, joint, and coalition operations. In 
fiscal year 2008, the administration requested--and the 
Congress authorized and appropriated--funding for three 
research and development E-2D aircraft. The committee notes 
that the E-2D program has experienced several delays in 
aircraft production over the past year due to development 
difficulties with the advanced radar. Those delays threaten to 
postpone the Milestone C decision for low rate initial 
production, currently scheduled for the end of the second 
quarter of fiscal year 2009, which would reduce the need for 
production effort funded by the fiscal year 2009 budget. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends the Navy decrease their 
planned procurement of low rate initial production of E-2D 
aircraft in fiscal year 2009 by one aircraft.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $165.5 million in 
APN for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft.

H-53 modifications

    The budget request included $56.4 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN) for modifications of H-53 helicopters, 
of which $2.9 million is for the Integrated Mechanical 
Diagnostics Health and Usage Management System (IMDS). Since 
2001, the Marines have been equipping the fleet of H-53 
helicopters with the IMDS. The systems flying have already 
provided a significant improvement in aircraft readiness rates 
and ability to maintain the aircraft to support high tempo 
operations, while simultaneously improving the accuracy of the 
fleet health and material status reporting. The replacement for 
the current CH-53, the CH-53K, is years away from achieving 
initial operational capability, so buying additional IMDS kits 
would still make a significant contribution to the readiness of 
the fleet.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 
million for the procurement of additional IMDS systems.

P-3 modifications

    The budget request included $152.7 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN) for continuation of the Special 
Structural Inspection-Kits (SSI-K) program, which replaces 
fatigue-limited airframe structural components to enable the 
airframe to fully reach its designed service life.
    Analysis that was conducted as part of the ongoing fatigue 
life management program determined that an area of the P-3 wing 
surface not included in the SSI-K program, designated as Zone 
5, has much worse predicted fatigue than previously estimated. 
These results caused the Navy to ground 39 of 130 mission 
aircraft in December 2007, and to initiate long-term mitigation 
efforts to correct the critical deficiencies.
    Due to the emergent nature of this P-3 sustainment issue, 
the budget request does not include funding for Zone 5 kit 
material and installation. The Chief of Naval Operations has 
identified the correction of this critical operational and 
safety of flight issue as the Navy's top unfunded priority. The 
committee recommends an increase of $160.0 million in APN to 
fund P-3 wing crack repair kits.

Common ECM equipment

    The budget request included $66.4 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy (APN), common electronic countermeasures 
(ECM) equipment, but included no funds to procure upgrades for 
the AN/AAR-47 missile warning system to incorporate hostile 
fire indications capability. This system improvement would 
provide aircrews with warning of anti-aircraft artillery, 
rocket-propelled grenade, or small arms fire. This capability 
would undoubtedly assist Navy and Marine Corps aircrews in 
avoiding or exiting dangerous environments. The committee 
believes that the Department of the Navy should be fielding 
this capability as a priority for aircraft potentially exposed 
to such situations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in 
APN to begin fielding the hostile fire indications capability 
for the AN/AAR-47 missile warning system.

Weapons industrial facilities

    The budget request included $3.3 million for various 
activities at government-owned, contractor-operated weapons 
industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of 
$30.0 million to accelerate the facilities restoration program 
at the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory.

Grenades Marine Corps

    The budget request included $39.0 million in Procurement of 
Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps (PANMC) for grenades. The 
committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PANMC for 
the procurement of additional grenades.

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement

    The budget request included approximately $1.3 billion for 
advance procurement for the Virginia-class submarine program, 
including $596.8 million for economic order quantity (EOQ) 
procurement of long lead material in conjunction with the 
current multiyear procurement program.
    Congress approved the Navy's request to enter into a 
multiyear procurement contract in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
and added $588.0 million to help accelerate increasing the 
attack submarine program to a rate of two boats per year. At 
that time, the Navy planned to increase production to a rate of 
two boats per year in fiscal year 2012.
    This year, as a part of the fiscal year 2009 request, the 
Navy plans to accelerate that production increase to fiscal 
year 2011. The Navy has also identified that additional EOQ 
funding in fiscal year 2009 and additional authority to conduct 
advance construction activities would help achieve greater cost 
savings and production efficiencies, and reduce the span time 
for construction as the program increases throughput to a rate 
of two boats per year in fiscal year 2011.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase for EOQ 
funding of $79.0 million. The committee also recommends a 
provision (described elsewhere) that would give the Navy 
authority to contract for advance construction activities for 
which authorization to enter a multiyear procurement contract 
was granted under section 121 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).

Littoral combat ship

    The budget request included $920.0 million in Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy (SCN) for the construction of two Littoral 
Combat Ships (LCS). The Navy intends this to be a relatively 
smaller, more affordable vessel that carries modular payloads. 
The Navy concept is that on one day, an LCS might be configured 
to operate as an anti-submarine vessel. However, as mission 
needs change, it could rapidly change the whole mission payload 
within a day or so, and operate in an anti-surface warfare or 
mine warfare mode.
    Each of the two prime contractor teams had contracts to 
build two ships. The prime contractors have teamed with smaller 
shipyards in both cases in order to keep LCS costs lower than 
would be possible in one of the major yards that normally build 
Navy ships.
    The first ship (LCS-1) was scheduled to deliver in late 
2006. The Navy is now estimating that the first ship will 
deliver sometime in late 2008. The LCS-1 contractor team had 
barely started on their second ship (LCS-3) when the program 
ran into major cost problems earlier last year. The Navy then 
issued a stop work order on LCS-3 in order to reduce 
expenditures and limit further cost exposure on the program 
while it separately re-evaluated program cost estimates.
    The Navy entered into negotiations with the LCS-1 team to 
sign up to a fixed price contract on the two ships or face 
outright cancellation on the second ship. The Navy terminated 
the contract for LCS-3 for the convenience of the government. 
As a result of that termination, the government will take 
delivery of some sizeable inventory of equipment and material 
for the cancelled LCS-3.
    The second contractor team had a contract to build two LCS 
vessels of another design (LCS-2 and LCS-4). The Navy awarded 
this contract almost a year later, so LCS-2 was roughly 1 year 
behind the LCS-1. The Navy went ahead with activities leading 
to the start of construction on LCS-4, despite internal 
warnings that the second contractor would face similar cost and 
schedule problems as those faced by the first contractor. Late 
last year, the same poor performance and fixed priced 
negotiation scenario also played out on the LCS-2 and LCS-4. 
This led the Navy to also cancel the LCS-4, again with the 
result that the government will take delivery of some sizeable 
inventory of equipment and material for the cancelled LCS-4.
    Section 125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) places a cost ceiling on 
LCS contracts of $460.0 million per ship, a dollar value 
provided by the Navy. Congress also authorized and appropriated 
one LCS in fiscal year 2008.
    The Navy has not awarded the one LCS approved in the fiscal 
year 2008 budget. The Navy's acquisition strategy, which has 
been extremely fluid, is to award this ship, plus the two ships 
from the fiscal year 2009 program later this calendar year. The 
Navy's intent is that the award be a limited competition, with 
each yard assured of being awarded at least one ship.
    The total funding provided in fiscal year 2007 and prior 
budgets for the six previously authorized Littoral Combat Ships 
totals $1,639.0 million. The Navy has determined that $1,162.0 
million of these funds is required for construction, test, 
trials, outfitting, and post-delivery of LCS-1 and LCS-2. The 
remaining $477.0 million funding is allocated against the 
terminated ships, LCS-3 and LCS-4, including material purchased 
for those ships prior to termination. Within the remaining 
funding allocated against the terminated ships, sufficient 
funding should also be available for LCS class design to ensure 
that the follow-on ships commence production with ``clean,'' 
producible drawings and planning products. Presuming the Navy 
maintains stable design requirements, the availability of clean 
drawings and planning products should ensure healthy learning 
curve performance in production. This learning curve 
performance, in conjunction with material purchased in prior 
years (from the terminated ships), should more than offset the 
effects of one year's escalation for ships purchased in 2009.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget has resources sufficient to 
award one LCS within the cost cap to either shipyard, when 
taking into account the inventory of equipment and material 
available from that shipyard's cancelled ship. The Navy would 
provide this equipment and material to the shipyard that wins 
the fiscal year 2008 ship as government furnished material 
(GFM). The value of this GFM would count against the cost cap.
    Under their plan, the Navy would also award at least one of 
the two ships in the fiscal year 2009 budget to the other 
shipyard. The Navy would likewise provide the GFM from that 
shipyard's cancelled ship to offset the cost of that one ship. 
Similarly, the value of this GFM would count against the cost 
cap on this ship as well.
    The fiscal year 2009 budget request, however, would fund 
both ships to the full cost cap and not take the value of this 
GFM for the second cancelled ship into account. This means that 
the budget request of $920.0 million includes more funding than 
can be placed on contract without violating the cost cap, 
unless the Navy were to withhold the GFM for the second 
shipyard.
    The committee believes that the Navy should apply the GFM 
to both contractors' vessels as soon as a second ship is 
purchased from either yard. Therefore, the committee recommends 
a reduction of $123.0 million to take that GFM into account. 
This will leave sufficient funds in the Navy's hands to award 
two ships in fiscal year 2009, with both ships fully funded to 
the congressional cost cap of $460.0 million.

LPD-17 amphibious transport dock

    The budget request for fiscal year 2009 included $103.2 
million to provide for LPD-17 program close out costs, but 
included no funding for the tenth ship of the USS San Antonio 
(LPD-17) class amphibious ship program, LPD-26.
    The Navy's 2008 report to Congress on the long-range plan 
for construction of naval vessels calls for assuming additional 
risk in the expeditionary warfare force, by reducing 
expeditionary force size, including reducing the LPD-17 class 
from a total of 12 to nine ships. The Navy would instead extend 
the service of some existing vessels as an interim measure, 
with no real long-term plan to solve the problem.
    The committee is concerned that this plan does not provide 
the total number of amphibious ships needed to support the 
Department of the Navy's two Marine Expeditionary Brigade lift 
requirements for forcible entry operations. In testimony before 
Congress in fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Marine 
Corps leadership stated that a class of no less than 10 LPD-17 
ships was required to meet Marine Corps forcible entry 
requirements, with acceptable risk. The Chief of Naval 
Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have both 
identified procurement of LPD-26 in 2009 as a top unfunded 
priority for both services.
    The committee is aware that construction for LPD-26 would 
have commenced in fiscal year 2009 under the previous schedule. 
However, with delays in other shipbuilding programs within the 
contractor's facilities, and with the fact that the contractor 
has recently had to subcontract significant work on earlier 
LPD-17s with other vendors, it should be possible to procure 
LPD-26 in fiscal year 2010 without incurring significant cost 
growth or jeopardizing industrial base stability.
    Therefore, the committee recommends: (1) an increase of 
$170.0 million for advance procurement; and (2) a transfer of 
the $103.2 million from program close out costs to advance 
procurement. In total, including funding provided in fiscal 
year 2008, the committee recommends $323.2 million for advance 
procurement for LPD-26.

LHA(R) advance procurement

    The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the National 
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) included $348.3 million for advance 
procurement for the first Maritime Prepositioning Force 
(Future) (MPF(F)), based on the design of amphibious assault 
replacement ships. These vessels are designated as the MPF(F) 
LHA(R).
    The committee does not agree with funding development and 
procurement for amphibious assault ships within the NDSF and 
has included a provision (described elsewhere) that would 
clarify what programs will be included in the NDSF.
    The Navy and the contractor have recently informed the 
committee that there will be significant schedule delays and 
cost increases for the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship. These 
problems, and the continuing struggles to regain and retain 
staffing and achieve productivity levels experienced before the 
Hurricane Katrina disaster, do not bode well for making 
expected progress on the LHA-6 amphibious assault ship, the 
next large amphibious ship to be built by the contractor. LHA-6 
is intended to be the basis for the design of the MPF(F) 
LHA(R).
    Based on all these factors, the committee does not believe 
that the Navy can or should apply all of the requested advance 
procurement funds in the MPF(F) LHA(R) in fiscal year 2009. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $170.0 
million for MPF(F) LHA (R) advance procurement.

DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer modernization program

    The budget request included $165.5 million in Other 
Procurement, Navy (OPN) for the DDG-51 modernization program. 
This program upgrades the 62 ships of the DDG-51 class with key 
technologies to provide improved warfighting capability while 
reducing operating and support cost. This is planned to be a 
20-year modernization program that will cost roughly $10.0 
billion.
    The Secretary of the Navy's fiscal year 2008 report to 
Congress on the long-range plan for construction of naval 
vessels identified the requirement to extend the service life 
of the DDG-51 class to 40 years in order to meet surface 
combatant force structure requirements. However, additional 
planning and funding to accomplish this extended service life 
is not included in the budget request.
    The committee views the Navy's plan to operate the DDG-51 
class for a full 40 years to be very high risk, based on recent 
history of 20-25 year service life for surface combatants. 
Additional fiscal year 2009 DDG-51 modernization procurement 
funding would support critical planning, engineering, and 
procurement activities for service life extension alterations. 
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in OPN 
for the DDG-51 modernization program.
    The 2008 Navy report to Congress on DDG modernization 
indicated that the Navy staff had reviewed a concept that would 
achieve favorable results for each of the program attributes 
outlined in the report. The Navy report identified using the 
multi-ship, multi-option (MSMO) contracts as the preferred 
approach for conducting the DDG modernization. The MSMO 
contracts are contracts for maintenance efforts on Navy ships 
that are conducted in the ships' homeport area.
    It is not apparent to the committee that the Navy seriously 
evaluated conducting the modernization program at the shipyards 
where the DDG-51s were built, or a so-called ``building yard'' 
approach. Further, upon reviewing the Navy's basis for 
determining that MSMO contracts would be more suitable for 
executing the DDG modernization program, the committee cannot 
find that the Navy has established measures of effectiveness 
and appropriate cost control mechanisms to maximize the 
benefits promised by MSMO contract maintenance strategies.
    The magnitude of this investment, coupled with the critical 
need for this modernization effort, warrants a more thorough 
assessment of the considerations leading to the Navy's 
selection of an acquisition strategy.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to submit a DDG-51 modernization acquisition strategy 
report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal 
year 2010 budget request. The report should include a plan to 
execute a pilot project that would accomplish the full scope of 
DDG-51 hull, mechanical and electrical, and combat system 
maintenance and modernization in a single availability executed 
at one of the building yards. Such plan shall include a 
detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment of each of the 
acquisition strategy and availability execution considerations 
addressed by the Navy's 2008 report on DDG modernization. The 
report shall also provide a quantitative and qualitative 
comparison of this building yard plan with the Navy's plan to 
execute DDG modernization within a MSMO contract framework. The 
report shall include a plan for strengthening the Navy's MSMO 
contract strategy by:
          (1) establishing a correlation between MSMO 
        solicitation/award criteria and actual DDG-51 
        modernization program scope of work;
          (2) incorporating performance benchmarks, metrics, 
        and incentives that enable the Navy to measure 
        performance and control cost consistent with the 
        discipline required of a major defense acquisition 
        program; and
          (3) ensuring viable strategies are available to 
        leverage the benefits of competition across the 5-year 
        duration of the sole-source, cost-plus MSMO 
        environment.

Submarine training device modifications

    The budget request included $33.6 million to procure 
submarine training device modifications, but included no 
funding for fielding any system that would provide commanders 
and sailors with instant, continuous, and long-term feedback 
regarding performance. The committee is aware that industry has 
developed standardized metrics systems that could be used to 
assess readiness and training proficiency. Such technology 
would be interfaced with simulators and instrumented ranges to 
automatically measure individual and crew performance as 
thousands of tactical events are performed during a single day 
of training. Having such systems would provide rapid, objective 
feedback to sailors regarding the accuracy and consistency of 
their tactical assessments and provide frequent and objective 
assessments to force commanders, so that they can spot trends 
and underperformers before an incident occurs.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.8 
million to expand the use of performance measurement systems by 
completing definition of metrics and algorithms and installing 
hardware and software in training sites.

Man overboard indicators

    The budget request included $43.2 million in Other 
Procurement, Navy (OPN) for command support equipment, but no 
funding to procure man overboard indicators (MOBI).
    The Navy has tested a one-per-person MOBI transmitter. 
Additionally, at least two expeditionary strike groups 
recommended the Navy procure MOBI transmitters for each 
embarked sailor, marine, and airman. The committee understands 
that a large majority of ship commanding officers having MOBI 
systems installed have requested additional MOBI transmitters 
in order to protect all embarked personnel. In addition, the 
U.S. Navy Safety Center has recommended that each embarked 
sailor and marine be afforded MOBI protection.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.9 
million for the procurement of additional MOBI systems.

Logistics vehicle system replacement

    The budget request included $324.6 million in Procurement, 
Marine Corps for the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement 
(LVSR). The LVSR will provide the Marine Corps with a 
replacement vehicle system for the current fleet of LVS's, 
which are approaching the end of their service life.
    The committee supports the LVSR program, but is concerned 
the Marine Corps' current plan for procurement is too 
aggressive given the number of engineer change proposals and 
other manufacturing issues that have been discovered during the 
low-rate initial production process. Further, the committee is 
concerned that the Marine Corps inadequately pursued unit cost 
reductions from the manufacturer given the 3-year window during 
which the Marine Corps intends to procure these systems. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $25.0 million 
in funding for fiscal year 2009.

Combat casualty care equipment upgrade program

    The budget request included $6.6 million in Procurement, 
Marine Corps, for Field Medical Equipment, but no funds for the 
combat casualty care equipment upgrade program (CCCEUP), now 
completing its fifth year of operation. The CCCEUP provides 
lightweight, compact, field medical equipment for the Marine 
Corps and Navy corpsmen delivering combat casualty care. This 
equipment and the medical care it supports are designed 
specifically to reduce preventable combat deaths and speed 
recovery of the wounded.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.9 million for 
the CCCEUP program.

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs



F-22A fighter aircraft (Sec. 151)

    As described elsewhere in this report, the budget request 
included $497.0 million for structural repairs to the F-15 that 
were added to the aircraft maintenance budget in case they 
would be needed to correct problems that might have emerged 
after investigations and inspections following a mishap in 
November 2007. Since that time, the Air Force has determined 
that these additional funds are not necessary for completing 
the repairs required to: (1) correct F-15 structural problems; 
and (2) return them to flying status.
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
$497.0 million Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 
either (1) advance procurement for F-22A aircraft in fiscal 
year 2010; or (2) winding down the production line for F-22A 
aircraft. The next President of the United States would have to 
decide which alternative would be in the best interests of the 
Nation and submit a certification of that decision to the 
congressional defense committees before any of these funds 
could be spent.
    The budget request included $3,054.2 million in APAF for 
building 20 F-22A aircraft. The budget request did not include 
funding for either: (1) advance procurement to continue F-22A 
production after fiscal year 2009; or (2) funding to support 
government liability for costs of closing the production line.
    The 20 F-22A aircraft in the fiscal year 2009 budget would 
complete the currently approved program to buy 183 F-22A 
aircraft. The committee heard conflicting testimony from 
Department of Defense officials about whether 183 F-22A 
aircraft are sufficient to meet the needs of the Department. 
The budget request reflects the view that 183 aircraft are 
enough to meet warfighting requirements. The Air Force 
maintains that it needs to have 381 F-22A aircraft to meet 
warfighting requirements, provide support to homeland defense 
missions, and have sufficient aircraft to provide squadrons for 
10 Air Expeditionary Forces (AEFs) and, thereby, support a 
peacetime rotation base for the AEFs.
    The committee also heard testimony from the Secretary of 
Defense, with which the Secretary of the Air Force concurred, 
that he would prefer to leave the question of continuing F-22A 
production after fiscal year 2009 in a neutral position for the 
next administration.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $497.0 
million, for either: (1) advance procurement to continue F-22A 
production after fiscal year 2009; or (2) funding to support 
government liability for costs of closing the production line, 
as decided by the next President.

                        Budget Items--Air Force


Advanced procurement for the F136 engine

    The budget request included $136.9 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for advanced procurement for the 
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. In section 213 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), Congress explicitly directed the Department of 
Defense to (1) develop a competitive propulsion system for the 
JSF aircraft; and (2) continue competition for the propulsion 
system throughout the production phase of the JSF program.
    In order to follow through on that direction and begin 
competition with the F-135 engine in 2012, the Department of 
Defense must begin funding for long lead items for the F-136 
production line in 2009.
    Therefore, the committee recommends in increase of $35.0 
million in APAF for long lead items for the F-136 engine.

C-17A engine spares

    The budget request included $367.6 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force, for the C-17A aircraft, including 
$114.6 million for engine spares. The funding stream for engine 
spares over the past 3 years has shown little consistency, 
going from a level of $76.0 million in fiscal year 2007 to zero 
in fiscal year 2008, and $114.6 million this year.
    The committee is aware that the operating forces have 
lodged few complaints over the availability of spares, nor have 
mission capability or effectiveness rates suffered in recent 
years. The committee believes that funding to the fiscal year 
2007 level should be more than adequate, at least until the Air 
Force can provide adequate supporting documentation of the need 
for additional spares.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 
million for C-17 engine spares.

Tactical intelligence support

    The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) forces 
operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, in cooperation with the 
intelligence community, have developed sophisticated 
capabilities to identify, find, track, and kill or capture 
high-value individuals. Whereas traditional force-on-force 
military campaigns require techniques to find and attack large 
mechanized formations, irregular warfare requires these new 
``man-hunting'' capabilities.
    Army and Marine Corps ground forces have requirements 
similar to JSOC's in their counter-insurgency operations. Over 
time, some of the systems as well as tactics, techniques, and 
procedures developed by and for JSOC have begun to migrate from 
JSOC to Army and Marine Corps ground forces. This process 
includes specialized support from national intelligence 
agencies. Also, the Army and Marine Corps themselves have 
acquired innovative capabilities to conduct effective counter-
insurgency operations.
    For example, the services have deployed ``human terrain 
teams'' to enhance their understanding of the local social and 
cultural environment. Biometric signature and forensic data 
collection capabilities and effective reach-back to national-
level databases and processing are more widespread and well-
received by tactical elements. More national human intelligence 
(HUMINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) databases are for 
the first time being pushed forward to support tactical unit 
operations with greater speed and frequency. Meanwhile, these 
capabilities are linked with airborne and ground-based 
intelligence capabilities that further enable the detection, 
identification, location, and tracking of high-value targets.
    The committee believes there is an urgent requirement to 
enhance and increase access to this man-hunting capability to 
all Army and Marine Corps ground forces in harm's way. 
Consequently, the committee recommends a series of actions to 
initiate, accelerate, or eliminate bottlenecks that impede 
fielding of special-purpose equipment and capabilities, much of 
them classified. Specific recommendations are outlined below, 
but full explanations are provided only in the classified annex 
to this report.

                            Airborne Imaging

    Requirements for airborne full-motion video (FMV) platforms 
are escalating rapidly as a result of demonstrated operational 
successes. The Department of Defense (DOD) appears to have 
responded belatedly and without appropriate focus to this 
requirement. The committee believes that DOD has focused almost 
exclusively on trying to accelerate fielding of the Predator, 
Army Warrior, Reaper, and Shadow unmanned aerial systems (UAS). 
Despite a sustained Air Force effort to surge the Predator 
system, however, UAS likely will be unable to meet operational 
requirements in the near term, for reasons discussed below.
    The committee believes that manned aircraft could be 
acquired and modified rapidly from the commercial sector, which 
would allow DOD to meet operational requirements until the UAS 
programs can catch up to demand. At that point, commercial 
contracts could be terminated, or the manned aircraft systems 
could be transferred to Iraqi security forces. The committee 
believes that DOD could have chosen to pursue this approach as 
an expedient through war-related supplemental funding.
    The committee notes that the Commander of Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM) has requested that Congress provide 
funds for approximately five 24-hour orbits of primarily manned 
aircraft in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental. This request, 
while commendable, would satisfy one-quarter to one-third of 
the immediate requirement. The committee is concerned that DOD 
has not explained why it is not seeking more of what SOCOM has 
requested. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
address this issue in the next war-related supplemental funding 
request.
    The major medium- and long-endurance UAS programs cannot be 
adequately accelerated in part because of shortages of 
operators and looming training limitations, as noted in the 
Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). The Department is now 
addressing the operator shortage by requesting funds for more 
training capacity, examining whether rated pilots are required 
to control these UAS, and investigating whether the Air Force 
needs to establish a career field for UAS pilots. The other 
major training-related problem is the lack of capabilities and 
procedures to operate UAS in the National Airspace (NAS).
    The committee is deeply concerned that DOD is unprepared to 
meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements to 
operate in the NAS. The committee appreciates that DOD UAS 
programs are growing larger and faster than anyone anticipated, 
and are being used in unexpected locations and missions. 
However, the major programs have been in the acquisition system 
for 15 years, and many observers, including congressional 
committees, warned DOD repeatedly of the risk of deferring 
resolution of this challenge.
    The Air Force is operating Global Hawk UAS from Beale Air 
Force Base under Temporary Flight Restrictions. Developmental 
test and acceptance flights for the Army Sky Warrior and the 
Reaper cannot be conducted at night at El Mirage Flight 
Operations Facility in California. The Army is fielding Shadow 
UAS systems to many Guard and reserve units across the United 
States that do not have access to restricted airspace for 
training.
    These problems require prompt and vigorous action. The 
committee recommends that DOD and the FAA create a joint 
committee between the DOD and the Federal Aviation 
Administration at the level of the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD/AT&L) and the 
Associate Administrator for Aviation safety. Such a committee 
could serve as the focal point for dispute resolution and 
policy development. The committee directs the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense to seek an agreement with the Administrator of the 
FAA to create an executive committee to implement the 
memorandum of agreement signed in September 2007 for Operation 
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System.
    The committee also recommends funding to accelerate the 
highest priority UAS airspace integration needs. The committee 
recommends $31.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 
(APAF), RQ-4 Global Hawk (Line 20) and $31.0 million in APAF 
MQ-1 Predator (Line 22) for two ground-based radars for Beale 
Air Force Base, and El Mirage Flight Operations facility, 
respectively, to provide enhanced ground-based collision-
avoidance capabilities to mitigate restrictions on terminal 
flight operations. The committee also recommends $10.0 million 
in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air 
Force, PE 35219F, to accelerate development of critical sense-
and-avoid capabilities for Global Hawk and the Predator/Sky 
Warrior UAS. Finally, the committee recommends $15.0 million in 
RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 64400D8Z, to begin the development for 
the major UAS programs of modeling and simulation tools, and 
standards, that will provide the foundation for gaining routine 
UAS access to the national and international airspace.

                    Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance

    One objection to buying many more airborne FMV platforms is 
that they are an inefficient means of surveillance. FMV cameras 
have a narrow field-of-view, requiring one platform for every 
specific target or mission. In areas where the target density 
permits, it would be more efficient to use camera systems that 
can cover large areas. The Army Constant Hawk and Marine Corps 
Angel Fire systems are current examples of wide-area collection 
systems. The DOD leadership requested funds for the Air Force 
to acquire a combined, enhanced system, currently called Wide-
Area Airborne Surveillance (WAAS), to image a larger area than 
Constant Hawk or Angel Fire, enable night operations, real-time 
support to ground forces, provide a forensic capability, and 
support many simultaneous targeting and surveillance missions. 
It could cue and hand off targets to FMV platforms for 
prosecution.
    The committee strongly supports this initiative for many 
reasons, including its potential to reduce the requirement for 
UAS with FMV and to make the latter more effective. However, 
the WAAS system likely will not be available in useful numbers 
for 2 years or more, and therefore cannot serve as a near-term 
solution for U.S. Central Command's airborne FMV deficiency.
    The Air Force intends to field the WAAS system on the 
Reaper, or MQ-9, UAS. The committee understands that it may 
require less time and cost to field the WAAS system on the Sky 
Warrior, or Predator-1C. The committee is also aware that there 
are several proposals under consideration to field WAAS 
capabilities on other platforms, such as the Shadow UAS. The 
committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to examine 
these issues and provide an assessment and recommendation to 
the committee by June 15, 2008 to help inform decisions in 
conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009.

                  National-Tactical SIGINT Initiatives

    The National Security Agency (NSA), with Special Operations 
Command and the Army, has developed special capabilities 
against modern signals encountered in Iraq and elsewhere. These 
capabilities are now engineered for fielding as tactical 
systems, on ground vehicles, and on airborne platforms. NSA and 
the Army are fielding the Triton III system on Mine Resistant 
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to support maneuver forces. A 
program called Final e-Curfew provides more advanced area-
collection capabilities against the same target set from fixed 
locations. These systems work in conjunction with databases 
pushed forward to tactical echelons.
    These systems should be fielded rapidly. The committee 
recommends authorization of $25.0 million above the request in 
Other Procurement, Army, line 74, to accelerate Triton III 
procurement and installation on the MRAP vehicles. The 
committee understands that the Army's needs for Triton III 
procurement exceed the amount recommended for authorization. 
The committee urges the Army and Office of the Secretary of 
Defense to include the balance of the requirement in the next 
war-related supplemental spending request. The committee also 
recommends an authorization of $25.0 million in PE 35885G, 
NSA's Tactical Cryptologic Activities, for development and 
acquisition of Final e-Curfew systems for the Army and Marine 
Corps units in Iraq.
    Special SIGINT capabilities are also more widely available 
for manned and unmanned aircraft deployment. The Air Force is 
planning to field these capabilities as an adjunct to the 
Airborne Signals Intelligence Program (ASIP)-2C configuration 
on the Reaper and Predator, and the Army is planning to build 
similar capabilities, under the Tactical SIGINT Program, for 
the Sky Warrior/MQ-1C UAS. The committee is concerned that the 
Army and the Air Force are developing very similar systems to 
meet similar requirements and concepts of operation. At the 
same time, the committee is concerned that neither service is 
planning to incorporate certain fundamental collection 
capabilities, as described in the classified annex to this 
report. The committee understands that these advanced 
capabilities will cost more and will consume a larger portion 
of the payload of such potential platforms as the Reaper, 
Predator, and Sky Warrior, but believes that these tradeoffs 
must be seriously considered. The committee is also concerned 
that the Air Force's preferred platform choice is the Reaper 
even though it will be more difficult to collect against the 
targets of interest from that platform's higher altitude.
    Accordingly, the committee directs that the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Intelligence, the USD/AT&L, the Joint Staff, and 
the Director of NSA, to review requirements and determine 
whether the Army and Air Force should pursue a single, joint 
airborne UAS SIGINT program, and whether this development 
should include the advanced collection capability described in 
the classified annex to this report. The committee requests 
that the Deputy Secretary report to the committee by June 15, 
2008 to help inform decisions in conference on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

B-52 bomber

    The budget request included $41.7 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force line 26 for the B-52 bomber, of which 
$32.4 million is for combat network communications technology 
(CONECT) and $7.3 million is for advanced weapons integration 
(AWI). No funds were included for the selective availability 
anti-spoofing module (SAASM). The committee recommends an 
additional $18.1 million for the SAASM, $22.8 million for 
CONECT, and $16.7 million for AWI, for a total of $57.6 
million. The Air Force failed to include adequate funding in 
the budget request to meet the requirements of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to maintain 76 B-52 bombers in a common configuration and 
included this funding on the Air Force unfunded priorities 
list.

Large aircraft infrared countermeasures system

    The budget request included $59.5 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force for procurement of aircraft installation 
kits for the large aircraft infrared countermeasures (LAIRCM) 
system for various C-130 aircraft. The LAIRCM system provides 
protection against man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) 
which are widely available and have been used by adversaries in 
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom against both 
military and commercial aircraft. Additional funding for 
LAIRCM, including funding for nonrecurring engineering and kit 
production for Special Operations Command (SOCOM), is included 
on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's unfunded priorities 
list.
    The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to 
accelerate LAIRCM upgrades for C-130 aircraft, in general, and 
an increase of $2.2 million to accelerate LAIRCM upgrades for 
SOCOM AC-130 and MC-130 aircraft.

C-130 Avionics Modernization Program

    The budget request included $422.8 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for the C-130 Modifications 
Program, including $149.1 million for the C-130 Avionics 
Modernization Program (AMP). The C-130 AMP effort suffered a 
Nunn-McCurdy breach in February 2007, which caused the 
Department of Defense to significantly restructure and 
recertify the program in June 2007. While the committee remains 
supportive of the program, we have concerns over the 
unexplained growth in overhead on the program.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $25.0 million in 
APAF for the C-130 AMP Modification Program.

Advanced targeting pod

    The budget request included $521.4 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF, line 78) for miscellaneous 
production charges, including $49.9 million for the procurement 
of advanced targeting pods (ATPs), also known as precision 
attack systems. Advanced targeting pods provide targeting 
capability for use with precision guided munitions on fighter, 
bomber, and attack aircraft. The ATP is currently in use by 
both the active and reserve components of the Air Force. The 
Air Force Chief of Staff included $170.0 million for buying new 
ATPs and upgrading existing ATPs in his unfunded priorities 
list.
    The Air Force and the contractor team for the Litening ATP 
program have devised a spiral enhancement kit for existing 
Litening ATPs that will provide:
          (1) a new fourth generation forward looking infrared 
        sensor;
          (2) a new fourth generation charged coupled device 
        (CCD) camera that enables targeting acquisition and 
        identification;
          (3) a C-Band video downlink capability which will 
        provide exceptional standoff capability outside of most 
        surface-to-air threats at twice the distance of the 
        earlier Litening ATPs; and
          (4) a laser spot tracker and a laser target imaging 
        processor which yield much improved performance for 
        targeting at long ranges using precision weapons.
    The committee recommends an increase of $27.9 million for 
the procurement of spiral upgrade kits for Litening ATPs.

Budget request realignments

    The Air Force requested that Congress make several 
realignments in their budget to correct various errors in their 
submission of the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) 
documentation. The table below reflects these adjustments:
    [insert at the end of budget items for APAF]

                  CHANGES TO CORRECT SUBMISSION ERRORS
                              (In millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Item                    Account    Line item    Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-130J..............................        APAF          49      -$25.0
C-130J..............................        APAF           6      +$25.0
JPATS...............................        APAF          12       -$5.5
JPATS...............................        APAF          39       -$0.4
JPATS...............................        APAF          75       -$8.8
JPATS...............................        APAF          63     +$14.7
(Adjustment to APAF line 63 already reflected in the budget request)

C-17................................        APAF           5       -$8.8
C-17................................        APAF          34       +$8.8
C-21................................        APAF          35      -$10.2
T-1.................................        APAF          40      +$10.2
C-21................................        APAF          70      -$19.0
T-1.................................        APAF          75      +$19.0
KC-X................................        APAF          10      -$61.7
KC-X................................        RDAF          83      +$61.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improved stores ejection cartridge

    The budget request included $150.8 million in Procurement 
of Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) for cartridges, but provided no 
funds for improved stores ejection cartridges. Funds provided 
will update the ejection cartridge currently used on numerous 
aircraft platforms by all branches of the military for various 
payload ejection applications, including, but not limited to, 
the F-15, F-16, A-10, and B-52 aircraft. The committee 
recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PAAF for improved 
stores ejection cartridges.

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile

    The budget request included $240.3 million in Missile 
Procurement, Air Force (MPAF) for the Joint Air-to-Surface 
Stand off Missile (JASSM). The JASSM program announced a Nunn-
McCurdy breach in February 2007. Following a review of the 
program, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) declined to certify the 
program, delaying the decision until at least May 2008. As part 
of the effort leading to recertification, the Air Force has 
been conducting JASSM flight tests, but those tests have drawn 
concern from the Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation 
(DOT&E). According to DOT&E, flight tests have not occurred in 
a predicted way, leading to serious questions about 
configuration control.
    The committee continues to recognize that JASSM was 
designed to meet a needed capability. The Air Force anticipates 
that it will be able to ramp up production once the USD (AT&L) 
recertifies the missile under Nunn-McCurdy rules. The Air Force 
plan is to increase production from 115 missiles in fiscal year 
2008 to 260 missiles in 2009. However, given the questions and 
concerns over this program, the committee believes that such an 
increase in quantities is unwarranted at this time.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $80.0 
million in MPAF for JASSM.

Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite

    The budget request included $16.5 million in Missile 
Procurement, Air Force for advanced procurement and launch 
support for the third Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) 
satellite but no funds for the fourth AEHF satellite. The 
committee recommends an additional $100.0 million for advanced 
procurement, parts obsolescence, test equipment, and spares for 
the fourth AEHF.
    In fiscal year 2008 $125.0 million was appropriated for 
advanced procurement for the fourth AEHF satellite, with 
direction to fully fund the fourth AEHF in the fiscal year 2009 
budget request. The Milstar satellites, the predecessors to 
AEHF, have lasted longer than expected and the Air Force has 
determined that it can wait until the 2010 budget request to 
include full funding for the fourth AEHF satellite. As a 
result, the technical, schedule, and cost risks associated with 
further extending the production break between the third and 
fourth AEHF satellites will further increase the cost of the 
fourth AEHF satellite.
    The committee notes that the Air Force is currently 
studying whether a fifth AEHF satellite might be needed. This 
study will not be completed until June 2008.

Intelligence communication equipment

    The budget request included $15.4 million in Other 
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for intelligence communication 
equipment, including $6.9 million for the ``Chief of Staff 
Innovation Program.'' In fiscal year 2008, this program is 
called ``Eagle Vision.'' Eagle Vision is a family of systems 
that provide commercial imagery data to operational commanders 
for mission planning, rehearsal, visualization, and 
intelligence support purposes. Eagle Vision is composed of a 
data acquisition segment (DAS) and a data integration segment 
(DIS). Funds requested for fiscal year 2009 are to support 
procurement of imagery ingestion capability upgrades as well as 
Eagle Vision DAS and DIS upgrades. These upgrades will provide 
improved processing capability, additional satellite 
capabilities, and baseline upgrades.
    Commercially available synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data 
at 1 meter resolution could significantly improve surveillance 
and search and rescue operations, since this data is 
unclassified, and is releasable to State and local responders 
or, with proper authorization, releasable to foreign 
governments. The data intensive SAR image will require an 
upgrade to the Eagle Vision communications and image archive 
and processing system not included in the budget request. The 
committee is aware that such an upgrade to the Eagle Vision 
system is available. Such systems deployed with Air National 
Guard will allow the Eagle Vision systems to respond to 
military contingencies and maritime surveillance, and search 
and rescue operations, or to natural or man-made disasters.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million to 
begin fielding the SAR upgrades for the Eagle Vision system.

Combat training ranges

    The budget request included $55.3 million in Other 
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) for making improvements at combat 
training ranges. These improvements are aimed at increasing the 
capability to support realistic air-to-air, air-to-ground, 
ground-to-air, and electronic warfare training, along with the 
ability to record and playback events for aircrew debriefing 
and analysis.
    The unmanned threat emitter (UMTE) modernization program 
will provide affordable and realistic threats, with sufficient 
threat density, typical of today's adversarial combat 
environment. This UMTE effort will upgrade performance 
capabilities and extend the service life of existing UMTE range 
assets by providing fully reactive, programmable, high-fidelity 
threat simulators, electronic attack receivers, automatic video 
tracking, and mobility to support time-critical targeting 
exercises. The committee understands that the Air Force's 
current threat emitters are inadequate to train F/A-22s, Joint 
Strike Fighters.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.7 
million in OPAF for UMTE.

Air Operations Centers

    The budget request included $35.1 million in Other 
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) line 33 for Air Operations 
Centers (AOCs), including $29.0 million for fielding additional 
AOCs, increment 10.1. The committee recommends a reduction of 
$29.0 million in OPAF for the fielding of AOCs.
    The Air Force plans to build between 12 to 30 AOCs in the 
coming years, with five main regional sites, and many more 
``tailored'' sites. The justification for the total number of 
sites is not clear. The recent addition of a requirement for an 
AOC for the newly created U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is a 
case in point. For the foreseeable future, AFRICOM will be 
headquartered in Germany. U.S. European Command already has a 
fully operational AOC for Europe, which is only partially used. 
Moreover, the proliferation of AOCs has created manning 
shortages in the AOCs across all regions. While the committee 
recognizes the value of the AOC that is currently fully manned 
and operated in the U.S. Central Command area of operations, 
little justification has been made as to why each numbered air 
force requires its own command facility, especially as reach-
back command and control continues to rapidly evolve.
    Finally, increment 10.1 of the AOCs was not developed as a 
service oriented architecture, even though that is the future 
approach for command and control within the Department of 
Defense. The committee recommends the Air Force take a pause in 
fielding increment 10.1 and fundamentally rethink its AOC 
fielding and operating strategy.

               Subtitle E--Joint and Multiservice Matters


Annual long-term plan for the procurement of aircraft for the Navy and 
        the Air Force (sec. 171)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual long-term plan for 
procurement of aircraft for the Departments of the Navy and Air 
Force. The provision would require that the plan project 
procurement, inventories, retirements, and losses for the 
following 30-year period.
    Aircraft that would be covered by the plan would include 
fighter aircraft, attack aircraft, bomber aircraft, strategic 
lift aircraft, intratheater lift aircraft, intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, tanker aircraft, and 
any other major support aircraft designated by the Secretary.
    The committee received testimony over the past 2 years 
about shortfalls of fighter/attack aircraft within the Navy and 
Marine Corps projected for the middle of the next decade, and, 
this year, received testimony about shortfalls of fighter 
aircraft within the Air Force projected for the year 2024.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense and 
Congress need long-term projections so that the two 
organizations can focus attention on potential shortfalls, 
gaps, or mismatches well before the full range of options are 
foreclosed. This annual report should help in that effort.

                       Budget Items--Defense-wide



Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

    The budget request included no funds for procurement of 
long lead items for Fire Units 3 and 4 of the Terminal High 
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. The committee recommends 
an increase of $140.0 million in a new defense-wide procurement 
funding line for procurement of long lead items for the 
interceptors and ground equipment for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4. 
Of this additional amount, $65.0 million would be transferred 
from research and development (R&D) funds requested in PE 
63881C for THAAD.
    Section 223(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the 
Department of Defense to request any long lead procurement 
funding for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4, and for Standard Missile-
3 interceptors, in the fiscal year 2009 budget request using 
procurement funds, rather than R&D funds. In addition, section 
223(c) of that act prohibits the use of fiscal year 2009 R&D 
funds for procurement of long lead items for THAAD Fire Units 3 
and 4.
    THAAD is a high priority near-term missile defense system 
intended to provide our regional combatant commanders with the 
capability they need today to protect our forward-deployed 
forces, allies, and other friendly countries against many 
hundreds of existing short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles. The budget request for THAAD included a planned 1-
year delay in the delivery of Fire Units 3 and 4, and an 18-
month production gap in THAAD interceptors. After congressional 
objections were raised to this planned delay, the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) decided it would reallocate $65.0 million 
of fiscal year 2009 funding for the THAAD system for long lead 
procurement of interceptors for Fire Unit 3. However, contrary 
to the law, MDA plans to use R&D funds to procure long lead 
items for Fire Unit 3.
    The committee disagrees with MDA's plan to use R&D funds 
for procurement of long lead items for Fire Unit 3, because it 
would be contrary to the law and contrary to the intent of 
Congress in requiring the use of procurement funds for such 
activity. Therefore, the committee recommends establishing a 
new defense-wide procurement funding line for MDA missile 
defense procurement activities. The committee expects MDA and 
the Department of Defense to comply with the requirements of 
section 223 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 in executing any long lead procurement funding 
for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4.
    The committee notes that the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) 
study, conducted by the Joint Staff, concluded that the United 
States needs about twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile-3 
interceptors as the number currently planned, to meet just the 
minimum operational requirements of regional combatant 
commanders to defend our forward-deployed forces, allies, and 
other friendly nations against short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles that exist today. To meet even these minimum 
operational requirements, MDA would have to increase 
substantially its plans and budgets for THAAD procurement. The 
committee expects MDA to adjust its plans accordingly.
    The committee is concerned that MDA has not planned or 
budgeted any funds in fiscal year 2009 for procuring a THAAD 
radar. This would create a gap in THAAD radar production and 
cause a schedule disconnect between fire unit delivery and 
radar delivery. Therefore, the committee also recommends an 
increase of $40.0 million in the new missile defense 
procurement funding line for long lead procurement of the THAAD 
radar for Fire Unit 3, to avoid a production gap and a schedule 
disconnect. The committee urges MDA to synchronize the THAAD 
fire unit and radar production and delivery schedules.

Standard Missile-3 interceptors

    The budget request included no procurement funds for long 
lead procurement of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors for 
the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system. Contrary to 
the law, the budget request included $57.0 million in research 
and development (R&D) funds in PE 63892C for long lead 
procurement of SM-3 Block IA missiles. The committee recommends 
transferring the requested $57.0 million in R&D funds to a new 
defense-wide procurement funding line for procurement of long 
lead items for SM-3 interceptors, consistent with the law. The 
committee also recommends an increase of $20.0 million in the 
new Procurement, Defense-wide line for long lead procurement of 
an additional 15 SM-3 interceptor missiles.
    Section 223(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the 
Department of Defense to request any long lead procurement 
funding for SM-3 interceptors, and THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4, in 
the fiscal year 2009 budget request using procurement funds, 
rather than R&D funds. In addition, section 223(c) of that act 
prohibits the use of fiscal year 2009 R&D funds for procurement 
of long lead items for SM-3 interceptors and THAAD Fire Units 3 
and 4.
    The committee is deeply disappointed that the Department of 
Defense chose not to comply with the requirements of section 
223 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181), and directs the Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to jointly provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees by no later than October 1, 2008, providing 
a detailed explanation of the reasons the Department chose not 
to comply with the law, and an explanation of the Department's 
plans to comply with the law.
    The committee notes that the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) 
study, conducted by the Joint Staff, concluded that U.S. 
combatant commanders need about twice as many SM-3 and THAAD 
interceptors as currently planned to meet just their minimum 
operational requirements for defending against the many 
hundreds of existing short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles. The committee is deeply disappointed that the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) has not planned or budgeted to acquire 
more than a fraction of the SM-3 interceptors needed to meet 
the warfighters' minimum operational needs, and that it does 
not plan to fund additional procurement beyond fiscal year 
2010. The committee believes that achieving at least the JCM 
levels of upper tier interceptors in a timely manner should be 
the highest priority for MDA, and expects the Agency to modify 
its plans and budgets to meet our combatant commanders' current 
operational needs. In section 223 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), Congress specified the Aegis BMD system and its SM-3 
interceptor as a high priority near-term program for the 
Department to focus on. As the JCM study makes clear, the 
Department has failed to do so.
    To address these concerns, the committee recommends an 
increase of $20.0 million in the new defense-wide procurement 
funding line for long lead procurement of an additional 15 SM-3 
missiles to start to address the need to meet the requirements 
identified in the JCM analysis. As described elsewhere in this 
report, the committee also recommends increases of $80.0 
million for increasing the production rate of the SM-3 missile, 
reducing schedule risk for the SM-3 Block IB missile, and for 
improving the capability of the Aegis BMD system to conduct 
engagements using offboard sensors, known as ``engage on 
remote,'' and to engage missiles in the ascent phase of 
midcourse flight.

Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance mission equipment package

    The budget request included $54.1 million for Special 
Operations Forces (SOF) Intelligence, but no funding for a 
classified intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance mission 
equipment package to modify existing classified air assets. 
This equipment is critical to enabling operators to fix, find, 
and target terrorists. It is also the Commander of the U.S. 
Special Operations Command's fifth highest priority item for 
funding, in the event that additional funds are available for 
the Special Operations Command.
    The committee recommends an increase of $13.3 million in 
Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Intelligence Systems, for a 
special operations forces intelligence, surveillance, 
reconnaissance mission equipment package to modify existing 
classified air assets.

Special operations forces combat assault rifle

    The budget request included $2.7 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide for the special operations forces (SOF) Combat 
Assault Rifle program, which provides the SOF operator a highly 
reliable, accurate, and sustainable family of weapons, to 
include the MK17 sniper support rifle, suppressors, the 
operator tool kit, and spare weapons systems to support the 
MK16 and MK17. However, the Commander, Special Operations 
Command identified a $4.4 million shortfall in funding for the 
MK17 sniper support rifle.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in 
Procurement, Defense-wide, small arms and weapons, for the 
Special Operations Command.

Special operations visual augmentation systems hand-held imager/long-
        range

    The budget request included $30.2 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide for the special operations forces (SOF) visual 
augmentation, lasers and sensor systems. However, no funding 
was included for the special operations visual augmentation 
systems hand-held imager/long-range. These relatively new, 
hand-held imagers are thermal imagers that significantly 
improve the ability of special operators to track targets under 
conditions where existing technology does not allow them to do 
so. The Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command has 
identified a $15.4 million shortfall in funding for these hand-
held imagers.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in 
Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF visual augmentation, lasers and 
sensor systems, for the Special Operations Command.

M53 Joint Chemical Biological Protective Mask

    The budget request did not include funding in the Defense-
wide, Procurement, special operations forces operational 
enhancements account for the M53 Joint Chemical Biological 
Protective Mask (JCBPM). The committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million for M53 JCBPM in this account.
    United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has a 
validated requirement for 14,601 JCBPMs, but only 58 percent of 
that requirement was procured with available funding from the 
Joint Program Executive Officer-Chemical and Biological 
Defense. Additional funding for this program would allow the 
purchase of the remaining 42 percent of the JCBPMs that is 
required by SOCOM.

Joint Chemical Agent Detector

    The budget request included $200.0 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological contamination 
avoidance, including $38.1 million for procurement of the Joint 
Chemical Agent Detector (JCAD). The committee recommends an 
increase of $10.0 million in PDW for procurement of additional 
JCAD units. The JCAD is an automatic, lightweight chemical 
agent detector, identifier, and warning unit that is 
significantly more effective, smaller, and less expensive than 
other fielded chemical agent detectors. It is replacing older, 
less effective systems, including the M8 Chemical Agent Alarm 
system that contains a radioactive source. It is important to 
equip U.S. forces with this greatly improved JCAD system for 
operational and force protection purposes.

Joint Biological Standoff Detection System

    The budget request included $199.6 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW) for chemical and biological defense 
contamination avoidance, but included no funds for the Joint 
Biological Standoff Detection System (JBSDS). Standoff 
detection of biological warfare agents is the highest priority 
technology objective in the chemical and biological defense 
program, and also one of the most challenging. The JBSDS is the 
first U.S. standoff early warning biological detection system. 
It has completed initial operational testing, and is capable of 
detecting and warning of biological threats at distances of 
several kilometers, before exposure occurs. It is thus a good 
choice for force protection at high threat overseas military 
facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 
million in PDW to continue low-rate initial procurement of 
additional JBSDS units, pending a final decision on full-rate 
production.

                       Items of Special Interest


Aegis modernization open architecture

    The Navy has been on a path to transition surface ship 
systems to an open business model, commonly referred to as Open 
Architecture (OA), for approximately 6 years. The goal of 
employing OA systems is to bring to bear competition and 
innovation to achieve improved performance and affordability 
through use of modular designs, allowing public access to 
design specifications, reusing software code, mandating common 
interface standards, and achieving seamless interoperability 
between system hardware and software applications.
    The committee concurs with the Navy's determination that OA 
is both a business imperative and a critical enabler for 
modernizing the Surface Navy. However, the Navy's overall 
progress in transitioning to OA is falling short of 
expectations in the extent to which the Navy is opening up the 
Aegis combat system for the DDG-51 modernization program. The 
Senate Report accompanying S. 1547 (S. Rept. 110 77) directed 
the Navy to outline its plan and progress with implementing OA. 
The Navy's OA report provides valuable insight regarding the 
strategy for implementing OA. However, the Navy has not 
outlined a program plan that ensures alignment between system 
development schedules, development contracts, Navy budget, 
program management structure, and the Aegis modernization 
program.
    The committee's concerns with delays to OA implementation 
are compounded by the revelation this year of significant 
shortfalls to Aegis combat systems engineering funding through 
the future-years defense program.
    The committee understands that the Navy intends to continue 
with a sole source contract to develop improvements in the 
Aegis combat system for a 5-year period commencing in fiscal 
year 2009. This decision is driven by schedule pressures. The 
Navy has assessed that the Aegis combat system is 
insufficiently ``open'' to enable competition for Aegis 
modernization development efforts in the time remaining before 
the first ship installation, scheduled in 2012. The decision 
also reflects the challenges associated with performing the 
tasks necessary to open this complex combat system for 
competition under prior sole source development contracts.
    The committee is concerned that, absent a rigorous program 
plan that provides for steady, incremental progress at opening 
the Aegis combat system, in lock-step with contracts governing 
the system development, the Navy will continue to fall short of 
the progress required to achieve the objectives for OA.
    Therefore, the committee directs that no greater than 50 
percent of the amounts authorized for fiscal year 2009 for the 
surface combatant combat system engineering program (PE 64307N) 
may be obligated under a sole source contract, until 30 days 
after submission by the Secretary of the Navy of a detailed 
program plan for implementing OA for the Aegis combat system. 
The program plan shall be included in subsequent quarterly 
reports to the congressional defense committees on Naval Open 
Architecture, and shall include methodology and scheduling for 
incrementally opening the Aegis combat system. The plan must 
provide for measuring discrete progress toward achieving a full 
open system commensurate with introduction of the 2012 Aegis 
baseline (formerly referred to as ``COTS Refresh 3'').
    It is the committee's intent that, following consultation 
with the Navy regarding the details of this plan, the Navy 
will: (1) establish future benchmarks to govern the transition 
from sole source to competitive development during the period 
2010 to 2013; and (2) transfer the lessons learned from this 
initiative to remaining surface ship combat system development 
programs.

F/A-18 Hornet and Navy tactical aviation inventory shortfall

    The committee is concerned that the Navy is facing a 
sizeable gap in aircraft inventory as older F/A-18A-D Hornets 
retire before the aircraft carrier variant (F-35C) of the Joint 
Strike Fighter (JSF) is available. Compounding this problem is 
the higher-than-predicted use of Hornets in ongoing operations 
and the challenges of meeting Marine Corps/Navy tactical 
aircraft integration obligations. The committee similarly 
raised this issue in the committee report accompanying S. 1547 
(S. Rept. 110-77) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008.
    This year, the committee again received testimony from the 
Navy of a projected shortfall in Navy tactical aviation. The 
Navy has indicated that, under current assumptions, it will 
experience a shortfall of 69 tactical aircraft in the year 
2017, a number that swells to 125 when requirements of the 
United States Marine Corps are included. The committee believes 
that the Navy's projection of this shortfall may be, however, 
based on a series of questionable assumptions.
    Regardless, the acknowledgement that the Navy will be 
short, at minimum, the equivalent of a full carrier air wing 
and an additional half of a carrier air wing of aircraft is 
troubling to the committee. Navy aircraft carriers are among 
the nation's most important power projection platforms. With 
shortfalls as large as the Navy is projecting, we could be 
faced with drastically reducing the number of aircraft 
available on short notice to the combatant commanders, either 
because we have deployed under-strength air wings, or because 
we did not deploy the carrier at all because of these aircraft 
shortages.
    The committee understands that the Navy is preparing a 
comprehensive tactical aviation plan to be delivered to the 
committee late summer, 2008. The committee eagerly awaits the 
results of that plan. Last year the committee directed the 
Congressional Budget Office to report on the strike fighter 
gap, with that report due this fall. Finally, as discussed 
elsewhere in this report, the committee has asked for a 
Department of Defense 30-year aviation plan, the first of which 
is to be delivered with the defense budget next February. These 
three plans should serve to inform the continuing debate over 
the looming strike fighter shortfall.
    The committee notes the Navy has testified about its 
confidence in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and its commitment to 
a long-term mix of Super Hornet aircraft and the future F-35C 
variant. Navy plans indicate that F/A-18-E/F Super Hornets will 
remain in the fleet until at least 2040. While the Navy has 
programmed the purchase of 89 F/A-18E/F in its future-years 
defense program (FYDP) (40 in fiscal year 2010, 27 in fiscal 
year 2011, and 22 in fiscal year 2012), it has not positioned 
itself to potentially increase its purchase of F/A-18 E/Fs in 
order to address the projected carrier aircraft shortfall. In 
the near term, the Navy has no satisfactory alternative to the 
F/A-18E/F for filling the gap.
    Therefore, the committee believes that a multiyear 
procurement (MYP) of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft may be 
helpful in closing whatever gap in capability is borne out by 
the plans described above. Needless to say, the committee 
expects that any MYP contract the Navy enters into, including 
one for this program, will fully comply with the requirements 
of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, as amended by 
section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). That section lays out a 
framework that allows the services to decide on which major 
weapons it seeks to buy under a multiyear contract, 
deliberatively and timely.
    Subject to the outcome of the plans described above, the 
Navy should explore all available options in determining how to 
address the anticipated tactical aircraft shortfall, although 
options to resolve the Navy tactical aircraft shortfall must be 
viewed realistically. Projections of the shortfall are already 
predicated on extending the maximum number of F/A-18A-D fleet 
aircraft to what virtually all observers have acknowledged is 
the extreme limit, a level of 10,000 total flight hours. 
Further, the shortfall assumes achieving an initial operational 
capability for the F-35C in 2015.
    The committee is particularly concerned that a failure to 
establish the conditions for an MYP on the F/A-18E/F by fiscal 
year 2010, should the Navy ultimately decide to purchase 
additional F/A-18E/F aircraft to address the tactical aircraft 
shortfall, could lead to the loss of ``substantial savings'' to 
the government. If the Navy were to proceed with annual 
purchases of F/A-18E/F aircraft to close the tactical aircraft 
shortfall but not position itself to do so with an MYP, the 
taxpayer may be deprived of ``substantial savings,'' within the 
meaning of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, as 
amended. The committee understands that the two previous MYP 
contracts that the Navy executed on this program obtained that 
level of savings--a savings that exceed 10 percent of the total 
costs of carrying out the program through annual contracts. The 
first MYP resulted in an estimated savings of $700.0 million. 
The second MYP resulted in an estimated savings of $1.1 
billion. This suggests that the Navy could achieve significant 
savings on a third MYP.
    The committee remains supportive of the 5th generation F-
35, Joint Strike Fighter. This provision should in no way be 
misconstrued as a lack of support for the F-35. In fact, the 
Department of Defense's current FYDP funding and quantities for 
the F-35C program should not be affected if the Navy decides to 
pursue an F/A-18E/F multiyear contract unless changes to the F-
35C program are being made for purposes other than to 
facilitate purchases of F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Light utility helicopter

    The committee understands that the Army's Light Utility 
Helicopter (LUH) is a commercial off the shelf procurement 
program that will begin fielding to the National Guard in June 
2008. The committee notes that the Army's current procurement 
plan buys fewer aircraft per fiscal year in 2009, 2010, and 
2011. The committee believes that the LUH program may benefit 
from an accelerated procurement strategy. The committee, 
therefore, directs the Secretary of the Army to reevaluate the 
acquisition strategy for the LUH to determine if an accelerated 
procurement plan could realize significant economic order 
quantity unit cost savings, allow the Army to retire aging and 
more expensive H-1 and H-58 model helicopters, and free up UH-
60 Blackhawks for the global war on terror and medium 
helicopter operations. The Secretary shall provide the 
congressional defense committees with the results of this 
reevaluation not later than September 30, 2008.

Material handling equipment study

    The committee understands that the U.S. Transportation 
Command (TRANSCOM) has previously identified significant 
shortfalls in Air Force material handling equipment (MHE) 
capable of deploying and operating in austere expeditionary 
environments. In response, Congress increased funding for the 
Halvorsen Air Cargo Loader for a number of years.
    The committee is concerned that ongoing attrition of older 
MHE units, increased Army combat end strength potentially 
requiring increased through put, and procurement of additional 
strategic and theater lift aircraft including the JCA and KC-X 
tanker with increased cargo capacity may serve to further 
exacerbate the operational requirements versus availability of 
MHE.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to 
conduct a comprehensive analysis of current and future MHE 
requirements across the Air Force, Army, and National Guard, 
and report to Congress on the findings of the study with the 
budget request for fiscal year 2010.

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) included over $17.2 billion for the 
procurement of more than 15,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 
(MRAP) vehicles. At the beginning of April 2008, according to 
the MRAP Joint Program Office, over 3,500 MRAP vehicles had 
been delivered to the U.S. Central Command area of 
responsibility--3,368 to Iraq and 154 to Afghanistan. The 
committee commends the Department of Defense and industry for 
working together to deliver rapidly to theater this urgently 
needed piece of equipment.
    The committee notes that in the coming months and years, 
the Department will need to develop a plan to incorporate these 
vehicles into the tactical wheeled vehicle fleets of the 
military services and develop a sustainment plan for the 
eventual transition of these vehicles from contractor logistic 
support to government support. Further, the Department must 
begin to account for the full cost of maintaining the different 
manufacturer variants and to develop as many efficiencies as 
possible.
    The Government Accountability Office has noted that 
developmental testing of the MRAP continues and that 
significant engineering change proposals are necessary to 
address a variety of issues. The committee intends to monitor 
closely how the Department works to incorporate these changes 
in the coming months, and the committee expects that the 
Department will place a high priority on any force protection 
and warfighter safety items that may be discovered in the 
ongoing developmental testing.
    The committee also encourages the Department to continue to 
pursue aggressively force protection technologies that will 
ensure that our military forces remain the best equipped in the 
world. The committee continues to monitor a number of ongoing 
research efforts, including active protection systems, reactive 
armor, and other add-on armor kits for the existing legacy 
fleet.

Mission packages

    The Navy has embarked on a program to develop modular 
counter-mine, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare systems, 
referred to as mission packages, to be deployed on the Littoral 
Combat Ship (LCS). The Navy envisions fielding 60 mission 
packages, which Navy commanders could interchange across the 
55-ship LCS class as operational requirements dictate. This 
total system capability of the LCS program has been identified 
by the Chief of Naval Operations as a top priority for 
operations in the littorals. The committee similarly views the 
capability provided by a family of LCS mission packages as a 
key component of the maritime strategy. The committee is, 
therefore, concerned by the delays to mission package initial 
operational capability, deployment, and full operational 
capability caused by delays to the LCS construction program.
    The Navy has designed the LCS mission packages with 
modularity and with open architecture. Having done this, the 
Navy should be able to deploy this capability on other ship 
classes. Such an expanded concept of operations would provide 
opportunities to employ mission packages more rapidly, and 
against threats and in operational scenarios perhaps not 
envisioned today.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to evaluate alternatives for employing LCS mission packages on 
other ship classes of the battle force, and to provide a report 
on his findings to the congressional defense committees with 
submission of the 2010 budget request. The report shall outline 
the feasibility, cost, and impacts associated with integrating 
mine countermeasures and anti-submarine mission packages on 
other surface combatant and amphibious force ship classes, and 
provide an assessment of the operational utility afforded by 
being able to deploy mission packages across the broader battle 
force.

Operational support aircraft for U.S. Africa Command

    The committee is concerned that the Commander of U.S. 
Africa Command (AFRICOM) lacks the necessary air support to 
execute effectively his mission in a continent comprised of 53 
countries, spanning a geographic area larger than the United 
States, China, and Western Europe combined.
    The Air Force has requested a C-37B and a C-40 aircraft for 
AFRICOM on its unfunded priorities list. The committee 
considers AFRICOM's operational airlift capability a high 
priority. The committee requests that the Air Force support the 
AFRICOM Combatant Commander's requirement with existing assets 
and, in the future, include these items in its regular budget 
request.

Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle

    The budget request included $316.6 million in Other 
Procurement, Army for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). 
The Army originally submitted a budget request $194.5 million 
higher in this PE than what was approved for submission to 
Congress. Included in this amount was $162.4 million for 
improvements to the Shadow vehicle. The Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) cut this amount 
due to a misunderstanding that the funds were intended to 
procure many more Shadow units, well beyond the approved 
procurement objective. The funds were in fact intended to field 
a heavy fuel engine, a tactical common data link, a laser 
designator, better cold-weather performance, and improved 
launch and recovery capabilities for the Shadow UAV.
    The committee believes that these proposed improvements are 
needed not only for better combat performance; all but the 
laser designator are also important for gaining routine access 
to national airspace for training and support to domestic 
emergencies. The committee recommends that the USDI reconsider 
his position and identify resources for reprogramming to 
initiate these improvements in fiscal year 2009.

Ship maintenance and material condition

    The Navy has determined that a battle force of no less than 
313 ships, operating within the framework of the Fleet Response 
Plan (FRP), is necessary to meet the requirements of the 
National Security Strategy. The FRP provides the framework for 
managing training, maintenance, and material readiness to 
ensure the Navy's ability to command the seas in major combat 
operations. Successful execution of the FRP relies upon 
individual unit readiness, which, in turn, relies upon the most 
fundamental ability to self-assess and maintain material 
condition. This is particularly critical as today's 280-ship 
Navy falls well short of the Chief of Naval Operations' 
requirement for 313 ships.
    Chapter 633 of title 10, United States Code, establishes 
the requirement for a Board of Officers, commonly referred to 
as the Board of Inspection and Survey, or INSURV, to examine 
naval vessels. The committee is concerned that recent INSURV 
reports have found that certain front line ships of the Navy 
are unfit for combat operations. When forward-deployed mine 
countermeasure ships were unable to get underway in 2006, the 
Navy attacked the material issues to restore these ships to 
high readiness. However, subsequent reports of serious 
degradation to amphibious ships, and more recently, the 
determination that two Aegis combatants are ``unfit for combat 
operations,'' raises concern that there are systemic issues 
associated with organic level maintenance and self-assessment 
that jeopardize the Navy's ability to meet its objectives under 
the FRP.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal 
year 2010 budget which addresses ship material condition and 
readiness. The report shall include underway material 
inspection findings and trends of the INSURV board during 2003-
2008, with an analysis of the cause for any downward trends and 
the actions underway to improve upon these trends. Further, the 
report shall specifically address the factors surrounding any 
ships found to be seriously degraded or unfit for combat 
operations. The report shall also address the Navy's findings 
with regard to unit level ability to self-assess and maintain 
material condition readiness.
    In view of the current emphasis by the Navy to reduce 
shipboard manning, the report shall include the Navy's plan for 
maintaining material readiness for the Littoral Combat Ship 
(LCS), which the Navy currently intends to deploy for extended 
durations. To support these extended deployments, the Navy 
intends to utilize rotating crews, consisting of substantially 
less than 50 percent of current combatant crew manning levels. 
The LCS plan shall include a description of maintenance 
requirements, performing organizations, budget requirements, 
and any consideration by the Navy to outsource LCS maintenance.

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical

    The committee continues to follow closely the test and 
evaluation activities associated with the Warfighter 
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) program. Following a 
fiscal year 2007 Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach, WIN-T is 
currently being restructured, and will be fielded in four 
increments. The first increment absorbs the former Joint 
Network Node-Network (JNN-N) program and provides the Army an 
initial battlefield networking capability down to the Army's 
battalion level. Follow-on increments will provide the Army 
with greater data capacity and more agile on-the-move 
capabilities. Increment 3 is intended to provide the Army with 
full interoperability with the Future Combat System (FCS).
    The committee continues to recognize the importance of this 
program to the Army's overall modernization efforts. However, 
the committee shares the concerns raised by the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) regarding the risk 
involved in pursuing an Initial Operational Test and Evaluation 
(IOT&E) without proper documentation and test resourcing. Now 
that the Army has completed its WIN-T Overarching Acquisition 
Strategy Report with accompanying Increment 1 Annex, the 
committee believes the Army must complete its WIN-T Increment 1 
Test and Evaluation Master Plan and IOT&E test plan with 
certification by DOT&E. Further, the committee believes it is 
critical that the Army test systems that are procured under the 
WIN-T Increment 1 contract, not equipment procured under the 
JNN-N contract. Additionally, the committee emphasizes that, 
for both WIN-T Increment 1 and 2 operational testing, the Army 
must use field representative units engaged in a full spectrum 
operations scenario.
    Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, 
in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics and the DOT&E, to 
report, no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, on 
the Army's: (1) initial operational test plan, as approved by 
the DOT&E for WIN-T Increment 1 as well as Test and Evaluation 
Master Plans for WIN-T Increments 1,2, and 3; (2) current plans 
to develop a baseline for WIN-T Increment 3; (3) timeline and 
details for a memorandum of agreement on requirements stability 
between FCS and WIN-T program offices; and (4) plans for 
completing an independent life cycle cost estimate for WIN-T 
Increment 3.
         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Explanation of tables
    The following tables provide the program-level detailed 
guidance for the funding authorized in title II of this Act. 
The tables also display the funding requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 2009 budget request for 
research and development programs, and indicate those programs 
for which the committee either increased or decreased the 
requested amounts.
    These tables are incorporated by reference into this Act as 
provided in section 1002 of this Act. The Department of Defense 
may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the 
tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set 
forth in budget justification documents of the Department of 
Defense) without a reprogramming action in accordance with 
established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 
changes to the budget request are made without prejudice.


              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Requirement for plan on overhead nonimaging infrared systems (sec. 211)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Air Force to develop a comprehensive plan to 
conduct and support research, development, and demonstration of 
technologies that could evolve into the next generation of 
overhead nonimaging systems. The plan would also include an 
explanation of how such systems would be tested, including any 
flight or on-orbit testing as well as how and when the 
technologies would transition to an acquisition program. In 
addition, the provision would prohibit appropriation of more 
than 50 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for 
the third generation infrared surveillance program until the 
plan is submitted to the congressional defense committees.
Advanced battery manufacturing and technology roadmap (sec. 212)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a detailed roadmap for the 
development of advanced battery technologies, and a domestic 
manufacturing base and assured supply chain to meet current and 
future military requirements. The committee notes that the 
Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy has 
highlighted the importance of advanced battery technologies in 
meeting military vehicle power and portable power requirements. 
The committee also notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
expends significant resources on the procurement of legacy 
batteries, and makes some investments in next-generation 
battery technologies.
    The committee believes that advanced battery technologies 
can play a key role in improving system performance and 
reducing operating and system life cycle costs. However, the 
committee is concerned about the Department's ability to access 
reliable, trusted sources of advanced battery technologies, 
especially given the diminishing domestic manufacturing base 
for these systems. The committee believes that the roadmap 
required by this section will serve to better coordinate 
service and agency efforts in battery technologies and directly 
tie investments to specific capability gaps, technological 
opportunities, and military requirements. The committee directs 
that the roadmap be developed in cooperation with each of the 
military departments, the defense and automotive industries, 
academia, and the Department of Energy, to ensure that future 
investments, programs, and plans are well coordinated and that 
technological and manufacturing capabilities serve dual-use 
purposes where applicable and advantageous to the Department.

Availability of funds for defense laboratories for research and 
        development of technologies for military missions (sec. 213)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish mechanisms through which 
laboratory directors would be able to set aside up to 3 percent 
of funding available to their laboratories to support defense 
missions. The funds would be available for the purposes of 
investing in innovative in-house research projects, promoting 
transition of laboratory-developed technologies into 
operational systems, or for science and engineering workforce 
enhancement activities. The committee believes that the funds 
to be used under the authority of this provision should be a 
portion of those that are currently directly appropriated 
funds; are funds derived from work for other Department of 
Defense organizations, other federal agencies, and non-federal 
organizations; or from other sources of laboratory revenue.
    The committee notes that the Department of Energy 
laboratories have had a similar authority, known as the 
Laboratory Directed Research and Development program. This 
authority is generally viewed as a necessary tool to support 
innovative research at those laboratories and retain and 
recruit the finest scientific talent, which helps ensure that 
the laboratories remain world class research institutions. Over 
the years, a number of independent groups, including the 
Defense Science Board, National Research Council, and Naval 
Research Advisory Committee have recommended similar authority 
for Department of Defense laboratories. The committee feels 
that this authority, if properly used, can help revitalize the 
defense laboratories and enable them to better support 
departmental missions and remain technically on par with their 
private sector, international, and other federal peers.

Assured funding for certain information security and information 
        assurance programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 214)

    The National Security Agency (NSA) and the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Network and Information Integration 
(ASD/NII) have attempted for a number of years to persuade the 
Office of Management and Budget to establish a budget line item 
for information assurance anticipatory development within the 
Department of Defense (DOD). While these efforts have not been 
successful, the committee believes that the arguments in favor 
of such a program are compelling.
    The information technology (IT) industry is the most 
vibrant and rapidly evolving industry in the world. The 
Department attempts to acquire or make use of these commercial 
IT advances to achieve efficiencies and improved operational 
effectiveness. However, DOD cannot effectively adopt this 
technology if it cannot be used securely, yet the Department 
has no appropriate mechanism for keeping pace with the march of 
technology development.
    There is, for example, an outstanding requirement for a 
very high speed Internet Protocol encryption capability, but 
NSA has almost no resources with which to respond. The 
executive branch recently had to launch a satellite that lacked 
encryption for a key wideband downlink. The Advanced Extremely 
High Frequency Satellite program was delayed because of a 
belated encryption subsystem development effort. These types of 
requirements can be anticipated and, with modest funding, 
security solutions can be developed to match acquisition 
schedules.
    The committee recommends a provision that would impose a 
permanent 1 percent tax on the Department's information systems 
security program, other information assurance programs, and the 
non-National Intelligence Program-funded cyber security 
initiative to finance this new program.
    The committee directs that the program be executed by NSA's 
Information Assurance Directorate unless otherwise specified by 
the ASD/NII. The ASD/NII shall review and approve expenditures 
under this program. The committee urges the administration to 
vitiate the need for this statute-based funding mechanism by 
submitting its own budget request for this activity.

Requirements for certain airborne intelligence collection systems (sec. 
        215)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that, by October 1, 2012, all intelligence collection aircraft 
that provide data to, or receive tasking from, the joint 
Distributed Common Ground/Surface System (DCGS) be connected 
to, and able to fully operate with, the Network Centric 
Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) network. The provision would 
provide for waivers on a case-by-case basis. The committee 
stresses that the RIVET JOINT RC-135 signals intelligence 
system is considered to be connected to the DCGS system via its 
satellite-based reachback capability, and therefore would be 
subject to the requirements of this provision.
    The committee believes that NCCT is an important 
intelligence and targeting capability that has not received 
adequate resources or management attention. Intelligence budget 
requests are generally based on inputs from the program 
managers of the collection platforms and few of them see that 
allocating scarce resources to connect to the NCCT network is a 
high priority because doing so benefits consumers in general. 
The operational utility of universal NCCT participation for 
commanders is not reflected in the programming process. The 
committee urges the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 
impose a joint perspective to NCCT.

                  Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs


Review of the ballistic missile defense policy and strategy of the 
        United States (sec. 231)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the ballistic 
missile defense policy and strategy of the United States, and 
to report the results of the review to Congress not later than 
January 31, 2010. The provision specifies a number of elements 
to be considered in the review.
    The committee believes it is essential for the next 
administration to conduct a full review of missile defense 
policy, strategy, and related matters at the outset of its 
tenure. The previous missile defense policy review was 
conducted before the United States had deployed any missile 
defense systems other than the Patriot system. In order to 
expedite the deployment of an initial set of missile defense 
capabilities, the Missile Defense Agency was created and given 
extraordinary acquisition flexibility and authority, and high 
levels of concurrency were adopted.
    Now that the initial missile defense capabilities have been 
deployed or are under production, the circumstances warrant a 
new overarching review to guide the next phase of U.S. missile 
defense programs and activities.

Limitation on availability of funds for procurement, construction, and 
        deployment of missile defenses in Europe (sec. 232)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of fiscal year 2009 funds authorized to be 
appropriated in this Act from being obligated or expended for 
procurement, site activation, construction, preparation of 
equipment for, or deployment of major components of a long-
range missile defense system in a European country until two 
conditions have been met: (1) the government of the country in 
which such major components of such missile defense system 
(including interceptors and associated radars) are proposed to 
be deployed has given final approval (including parliamentary 
ratification) to any missile defense agreements negotiated 
between such government and the United States Government 
concerning the proposed deployment of such components in such 
country; and (2) 45 days have elapsed following the receipt by 
Congress of the report required by section 226(c) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181).
    The provision would also limit the availability of fiscal 
year 2009 funds for the acquisition (other than initial long 
lead procurement) or deployment of operational interceptor 
missiles for the proposed long-range missile defense system in 
Europe until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress, 
after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test 
and Evaluation, that the proposed interceptor to be deployed as 
part of such a missile defense system has demonstrated, through 
successful, operationally realistic flight testing, that it has 
a high probability of accomplishing its mission in an 
operationally effective manner.
    The provision also makes clear that it would not limit 
continuing obligations and expenditures of funds for missile 
defense, including for research and development and for other 
activities not otherwise limited by the provision, including 
site surveys, studies, analysis, and planning and design for 
the proposed missile defense deployment in Europe.
    The committee notes that the provision would adopt the same 
standard that was enacted in section 226 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) with respect to the availability of funds for the proposed 
deployment of a long-range missile defense system in Europe. 
The provision would make clear that if a European host nation 
provides final approval of a negotiated deployment agreement 
with the United States, it would be able to proceed without 
waiting for the final approval of another European nation on 
any missile defense agreements negotiated with the United 
States.
    The provision would also clarify that initial long-lead 
procurement of parts for the planned 2-stage interceptors could 
be acquired. The committee notes that the initial long lead 
items planned for procurement are 100 percent common with both 
the 2-stage and 3-stage Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs). 
Therefore, they could be used for purposes other than being 
deployed on operational 2-stage GBIs if necessary, including 
for flight test and ground test interceptors for either 3-stage 
or 2-stage GBIs. As described elsewhere in this report, the 
committee recommends authorizing initial funding for these long 
lead parts, with the understanding that if there are problems 
with the 2-stage GBI development program, these long lead parts 
would be used for other purposes, rather than being wasted or 
deployed before the 2-stage GBI is certified as ready.
    The United States is continuing its negotiations with 
Poland and the Czech Republic on agreements concerning the 
proposed deployment of 10 GBI missiles in Poland and a 
midcourse X-band radar in the Czech Republic. Although the 
negotiations with the Czech Republic appear to be nearly 
complete, the negotiations with Poland could still take months 
to complete, and are conditioned on whether the United States 
meets Poland's requests for security enhancements. If the 
negotiations are concluded successfully, it will take 
additional time for the Polish and Czech parliaments to 
consider ratification of the agreements. Consequently, it 
remains unclear whether or when any agreements would be finally 
approved, a necessary condition before beginning any proposed 
construction or deployment.
    The committee notes that the proposed 2-stage interceptor 
intended for deployment in Poland is still being developed, and 
is not scheduled to have its first booster flight test until 
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009. Given that a number of 
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) flight tests have been 
delayed substantially, it is possible that the 2-stage GBI 
tests will also be delayed.
    In an October 2007 report, the Director of Operational Test 
and Evaluation (DOT&E) noted the ``significant differences'' 
between the proposed GMD deployment with a 2-stage interceptor 
in Europe and the existing GMD system deployed in the United 
States with a 3-stage GBI. According to the report, ``European 
defense using GMD assets is a completely new mission area for 
GMD.'' The report provided DOT&E's initial testing concept for 
the proposed European deployment, which would include three 
flight tests, two of which would be intercept tests. The 
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) was originally planning to conduct 
only two flight tests prior to deploying the system, one of 
which would be an intercept test. This planned flight test 
program would not meet the DOT&E minimum test plan concept. It 
is difficult to envision the certification required of the 
Secretary of Defense under these circumstances. However, MDA 
has recently agreed to conduct three flight tests, in 
accordance with the DOT&E test concept. The committee views 
this as a positive development.
    The committee notes that, in their Bucharest summit 
declaration in April, Ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) recognized the substantial contribution of 
the planned deployment to the protection of NATO allies against 
long-range missiles, and said they were exploring ways to link 
the planned capability with NATO missile defense efforts. They 
also said they would develop options for a comprehensive NATO 
missile defense architecture to provide coverage of the 
portions of NATO Europe that would not be covered by the 
planned U.S. deployment, in order to inform any future 
political decision by NATO on whether and how to provide 
defensive coverage for the portion of its territory that would 
not be protected against ballistic missiles, including from the 
hundreds of Iranian ballistic missiles that exist today.

Airborne Laser system (sec. 233)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to review 
and evaluate the testing conducted on the first Airborne Laser 
(ABL) aircraft and to report to the Secretary of Defense and to 
Congress, not later than January 15, 2010, his assessment of 
the operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability 
of the ABL system. The provision would also limit the 
availability of funds for procurement of a second ABL aircraft 
until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the assessment 
of DOT&E, certifies that the ABL system has demonstrated, 
through successful testing and operational and cost analysis, a 
high probability of being operationally effective, suitable, 
survivable, and affordable.
    The committee observes that Missile Defense Agency 
officials indicated in a briefing to staff that the authority 
to proceed with the second ABL aircraft has been granted on the 
condition that the planned 2009 first shoot-down demonstration 
test is successful, and that the budget request included $15.8 
million to begin studies and analysis on a second ABL aircraft. 
The committee believes that a decision on whether to proceed 
with a possible second ABL aircraft should only be made after 
much more information is available about the likelihood that 
the system could eventually provide an operationally effective, 
suitable, survivable, and affordable missile defense 
capability.
    As the committee noted last year, the ABL program has many 
unanswered questions about operational effectiveness, 
suitability, survivability, and affordability. The committee 
believes these questions need to be answered before making a 
commitment to procure a second ABL aircraft.

Annual Director of Operational Test and Evaluation characterization of 
        operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of 
        the Ballistic Missile Defense System (sec. 234)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
annual report by the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation (DOT&E) on the testing of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense System (BMDS) to include a characterization of the 
operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of 
the BMDS and its elements that have been fielded or tested 
before the end of the previous fiscal year.
    Section 232(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) requires DOT&E to 
provide an annual report to Congress assessing the adequacy and 
sufficiency of the test program of the Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) during the previous fiscal year. Section 234(b)(2) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163) requires DOT&E to submit a report to Congress 
providing his characterization of the operational 
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the BMDS at 
the conclusion of testing of each 2-year block of the BMDS. 
However, MDA eliminated the previous 2-year block structure and 
replaced it with functional blocks that respond to specific 
threats. These new blocks have no timelines associated with 
them, thus changing the schedule assumptions of section 
234(b)(2). This provision would retain the requirement for 
DOT&E to report to Congress on the characterization of the 
BMDS, consistent with the new MDA block structure.
    The committee notes that the DOT&E annual missile defense 
testing report for 2007 included the DOT&E characterization of 
the operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability 
of the Block 2006 BMD system and its elements, in fulfillment 
of the requirements of section 234(b)(2) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. In testimony 
before the committee, Dr. Charles McQueary, the DOT&E, stated 
that he plans to include this characterization information in 
future annual DOT&E reports on missile defense testing.

Independent assessment of boost-phase missile defense programs (sec. 
        235)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to enter into a contract with the National 
Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent assessment of the 
boost-phase missile defense programs of the United States to 
consider the extent to which boost-phase missile defense is 
feasible, practical, and affordable, and whether any of the 
existing boost-phase missile defense technology programs of the 
Department of Defense (particularly the Airborne Laser and the 
Kinetic Energy Interceptor) have a high probability of 
performing a boost-phase missile defense mission in an 
operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and affordable 
manner. Upon completion of its assessment, the National Academy 
would submit a report on the results of its assessment to the 
Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees, 
along with any recommendations the Academy considers 
appropriate.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense will 
have spent over $5.1 billion since 1996 on the Airborne Laser 
(ABL) technology demonstration program to conduct the first 
proof of principle missile shoot-down demonstration test in 
2009, and an additional $2.8 billion in the 4-year period 
starting in fiscal year 2010. The Congressional Budget Office 
provided an initial estimate that a fleet of seven ABL aircraft 
could cost as much as $36.0 billion to develop, acquire, and 
operate. Additionally, the Department plans to spend more than 
$3.6 billion over the 7-year period starting in fiscal year 
2007 on technology development for the Kinetic Energy 
Interceptor (KEI) as a possible boost-phase intercept system. 
Despite these significant past and planned expenditures, there 
is no assurance that either of these systems will work in an 
operationally effective, practical, or affordable manner.
    As the committee noted last year, the ABL program has a 
host of significant unanswered questions related to whether it 
could work in an operationally effective, suitable, survivable, 
and affordable manner. For example, the ABL concept is to 
destroy a missile body--not the warhead--while it is boosting. 
By the time this intercept would take place, the missile could 
have achieved sufficient velocity to travel well outside the 
border of the nation that launched it. Thus, the warhead could 
continue to fly to an unintended location, including possibly 
an allied country where U.S. forces are deployed, and cause 
significant damage. Also, for the aircraft to have any 
possibility of conducting intercepts, it would have to be 
flying at exactly the right place and the right time, out of 
range of air defenses, but within range of a boosting missile. 
Given these constraints, there appear to be practical limits to 
the ability of an ABL system to operate against most nations 
that possess ballistic missiles.
    In its March 2007 report, ``Defense Acquisitions: Missile 
Defense Acquisition Strategy Generates Results but Delivers 
Less at a Higher Cost,'' the Government Accountability Office 
recommended an independent evaluation of ABL and KEI ``to 
inform decisions on the future of the two programs.'' The 
statement of managers to accompany the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) 
expressed the view that an independent review should be 
conducted of the ABL and KEI programs.
    The committee believes it would be important to have an 
independent, technically competent review of the feasibility, 
practicality, and affordability of boost-phase missile defense 
programs to help inform future decisions on missile defense 
investments.

Study on space-based interceptor element of ballistic missile defense 
        system (sec. 236)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to enter into a contract with one or more 
independent entities to conduct a review of the feasibility and 
advisability of developing a space-based interceptor element to 
the ballistic missile defense system. The provision would 
require that the contract be entered into after consultation 
with the Chairman and Ranking members of the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
and no later than 75 days after the date this Act is enacted. 
The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to undertake a 
thorough consultation with the Committees on Armed Services in 
advance of selecting the independent entity or entities to 
conduct the study.
    The independent entities could be federally funded research 
and development centers, including the Department of Energy 
National Laboratories, recognized scientific and technical 
organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the 
American Physical Society, or drawn from academia such as 
JASON.
    The provision would direct the report be provided 
simultaneously to the Committees on Armed Services and to the 
Secretary of Defense and would permit the Secretary a period of 
60 days to submit comments or recommendations with respect to 
the report to the committees. The report and any comments would 
be submitted in an unclassified form but may include a 
classified annex.
    The provision would authorize $5.0 million from funds 
available to the Missile Defense Agency for the study.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


Modification of systems subject to survivability testing by the 
        Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (sec. 251)

    The committee recommends a provision that would ensure that 
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) can 
perform adequate and necessary oversight over the live fire, 
survivability, and lethality testing of critical defense 
systems. The committee has been concerned about the oversight 
of testing, and the lack of standardized testing for systems 
fielded to personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 
personnel protective equipment such as body armor and helmets. 
The committee attempted to enhance testing and DOT&E oversight 
authority over testing of these types of systems through 
statutory changes in section 231 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364). Section 231 intended to authorize the DOT&E to perform 
necessary oversight activities over force protection and non-
lethal weapon systems.
    The committee feels that the ability of the DOT&E to 
perform his intended role to ensure that fielded systems are 
survivable is hindered by lack of statutory authority and 
limited cooperation by the military services. The committee 
notes that the DOT&E has worked effectively in partnership with 
the services in performing testing oversight duties on 
important rapid development and fielding initiatives like the 
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle, which have 
contributed to improving the survivability and performance of 
the systems without unnecessary delay in development or 
fielding of vital combat systems.
    The committee directs the secretaries of the military 
departments to ensure that programs designated for 
survivability oversight by the DOT&E under this authority 
cooperate fully with testing oversight officials such that all 
equipment fielded to deployed personnel is safe, survivable, 
and of the highest performance possible.

Biennial reports on joint and service concept development and 
        experimentation (sec. 252)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
existing reporting requirement on joint warfighting 
experimentation activities. The provision would reduce the 
reporting requirement from annual to biennial and change the 
report's focus to better reflect the current state of concept 
development and experimentation activities in the Department of 
Defense, and better highlight current and future activities 
that will enable robust joint warfighting capabilities.
    The committee commends United States Joint Forces Command 
(JFCOM) for its extensive efforts in concept development and 
experimentation. To date, JFCOM activities have explored a 
number of emerging operational concepts, capabilities, and 
technologies, including addressing future homeland defense, 
interagency cooperation, urban operations, and multinational 
operations scenarios. However, it is not clear that JFCOM is 
placing a high enough priority on experimentation with future 
concepts and technologies that could be operationally employed 
in a time frame of greater than 10 years. The committee is also 
concerned that the efforts of JFCOM in this regard have not had 
sufficient and wide ranging impacts across the organizational 
and force structures, doctrine, and materiel development 
activities of the Department of Defense. The committee also 
notes that the services continue to pursue their own 
warfighting experimentation and concept development activities, 
though often in a manner poorly coordinated with joint efforts. 
Therefore, the provision's reporting requirements include 
focused reporting on ``futures'' experimentation, an assessment 
of the return on investments in concept development and 
experimentation activities in terms of specific outcomes and 
impacts within the Department of Defense, and descriptions of 
the concept development and experimentation activities of the 
military departments.
    Further, the committee notes that the JFCOM Commander's 
activities in joint training, provision of joint forces, and 
position as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation may also serve to 
motivate recommended changes in the Department's organizational 
and force structure, doctrine, and materiel development 
efforts, which should also be incorporated into the 
recommendations included in the report.
    Finally, the committee directs the secretaries of the 
military departments to support the development of this report 
through coordination, appropriate resources, and supplying 
required information in a timely manner.

Repeal of annual reporting requirement relating to the Technology 
        Transition Initiative (sec. 253)

    The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate 
the recurring reporting requirement on the Technology 
Transition Initiative (TTI). The committee originally proposed 
this initiative in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) in order to accelerate 
the transition of technologies from science and technology 
programs into operational use. The initiative was codified in 
section 242 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314).
    The committee notes that the TTI is currently successfully 
transitioning roughly 70 percent of its funded projects into 
operational use. This committee believes that this success is a 
result of the initiative's flexible funding, cost sharing 
requirements, and joint and service participation in the 
selection and funding of projects. The committee notes that the 
statute and processes of the TTI have contributed to enhancing 
the links between technology developers, requirements 
generators, and operators, and have successfully enhanced 
transition efficiency and speed. The committee notes that there 
are now a number of parallel initiatives and programs seeking 
to accelerate technology transition in the Department of 
Defense, including, but not limited to, the Quick Reaction 
Fund, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, the 
work of the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, many Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency efforts, and the Army Agile 
Integration and Demonstration program.
    The committee notes that some of these programs may be 
duplicative and others may not be adequately coordinated with 
partner services, agencies, and operational users, but rather 
are flexible funds used solely in the discretion of a single 
organization. The committee notes that the desire for complete 
flexibility in the use of appropriated funds is a necessary but 
insufficient condition for enhancing technology transition, and 
can lead to problems in ensuring adequate oversight and in 
coordination between elements of the Department. The committee 
recommends that the Secretary of Defense, working through the 
Technology Transition Council, continue to review these 
programs and their relative merits and authorities and 
recommend any necessary consolidation, expansion, or changes in 
statutory authorities, or other changes in regulations or 
execution that would increase their efficiency and 
effectiveness.

Executive agent for printed circuit board technology (sec. 254)

    The committee recommends a provision that would follow the 
recommendations of the National Research Council and a report 
of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and 
Materiel Readiness and would require the establishment of an 
executive agent to oversee Department of Defense (DOD) 
activities related to printed circuit board technologies. The 
committee notes that the National Research Council's Board on 
Manufacturing and Engineering Design studied the issue of DOD 
access to legacy and future generations of printed circuit 
board technologies to support defense and other missions. The 
resulting 2005 report made a series of recommendations designed 
to ensure DOD access to printed circuit board technology and 
enable the development of new capabilities needed to support 
emerging requirements.
    In March 2008, a Principal Response Team convened by the 
Navy and Defense Logistics Agency, and consisting of membership 
from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National 
Security Agency, the military services, and the Departments of 
State and Energy, reported to Congress that ``DOD concurs with 
comments on all NRC recommendations,'' and identified current 
and potential actions to address each one.
    The committee notes that printed circuit board technologies 
are critical components of numerous defense systems, and cost 
the Department roughly $500.0 million annually. There are 
strong and growing concerns related to the development of next-
generation capabilities, to preserving assured access to 
trusted sources of technology due to a diminishing domestic 
manufacturing base, and even to the trustworthiness of existing 
supplies of printed circuit board technology being used for 
military systems. The committee notes that DOD efforts to 
address these issues have been underfunded and disjointed in 
the past. The establishment of an executive agent can raise the 
profile of risk issues related to printed circuit board 
technological, as well as production and acquisition issues, 
and help ensure that these concerns are better addressed in 
future budgets, plans, and programs. The committee further 
notes that the March 2008 DOD report recommended a series of 
possible actions for the executive agent to undertake to 
address a variety of issues. The committee directs the 
executive agent to carefully analyze and evaluate these 
recommendations and act on them as appropriate.

Report on Department of Defense response to findings and 
        recommendations of the Defense Science Board Task Force on 
        Directed Energy Weapons (sec. 255)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop specific responses to the 
findings and recommendations of the December 2007 Defense 
Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons. The 
DSB found that directed energy offers promise as a 
``transformational game changer,'' but that ``years of 
investment have not resulted in any current operational high-
energy laser capability.'' The DSB made a series of 
recommendations broadly aimed at accelerating the operational 
use of directed energy weapons, including: better defining 
concepts of operations for directed energy weapons; better 
understanding the relative benefits and disadvantages of 
directed energy systems versus traditional, kinetic systems; 
and better focusing research and development and science and 
technology investments on high priority potential operational 
solutions and on resolving specific high priority technical 
issues.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
coordinate a formal response to the DSB findings and 
recommendations in concert with appropriate technology 
development, requirements generation, and operational 
communities. The committee also directs that the required 
analysis address the important issue of assuring that the 
Department of Defense has sufficient testing expertise and 
infrastructure to adequately perform all necessary 
developmental and operational tests on directed energy systems.

Assessment of standards for mission critical semiconductors procured by 
        the Department of Defense (sec. 256)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to perform an assessment of existing and 
emerging technical methods for verifying the trustworthiness of 
semiconductors procured for use in critical defense 
applications.
    The committee notes that the manufacture of semiconductors 
has continued to migrate to off-shore foundries, particularly 
to foundries in China. Since the defense semiconductor market 
comprises only 1 percent of the overall global semiconductor 
market, the Department of Defense's (DOD) ability to procure 
high end semiconductor technologies is largely dependent on 
commercial interests, practices, and markets.
    The committee notes that the Department is currently 
depending primarily on a single source for high end 
semiconductors for defense and intelligence applications 
through the DOD Trusted Foundry program, which was established 
in 2004. The February 2005 report by the Defense Science Board 
Task Force on High Performance Microchip supply stated that the 
Trusted Foundry Program is an interim source of high 
performance integrated circuits (ICs) and was appropriate for 
addressing the immediate needs for trusted sources of IC 
supply. Since that time, the trend of migration of 
semiconductor manufacturing overseas has continued, making it 
more urgent to augment the Trusted Foundry by developing a more 
comprehensive approach for the procurement of trusted parts.
    The committee notes that one issue that needs to be 
addressed by the Department through the required assessment is 
providing defense programs assurance of dependable, continuous, 
long-term access to trusted, mission critical semiconductors 
from both foreign and domestic sources for its potentially 
vulnerable defense systems. DOD needs for integrated circuits 
include high end semiconductors, custom Application Specific 
Integrated Circuits (ASICs), and Field Programmable Gate Arrays 
(FPGAs). The committee notes that the assurance of trust 
includes verifying that the semiconductor has not been tampered 
with or modified in any way, and performs only the functions 
expected and required. This also requires assurance that the 
design process, fabrication, packaging, final assembly, and 
test of semiconductors are also free from tampering.
    The recommended provision would require that the Department 
inventory and possibly implement the best methods currently 
available for assuring trust. The committee recommends that the 
Department put in place an overall policy and direction, as 
well as a plan for the procurement of semiconductors that 
assures continuous access and trust to support military 
requirements. The committee believes the Department also needs 
to monitor and implement new techniques and approaches as they 
become available through technological advances.
    Finally, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to keep the 
congressional defense committees informed of the actions taken 
pursuant to this provision.

                              Budget Items


                                  Army



Army basic research programs

    The budget request included $177.0 million in PE 61102A for 
Army defense research sciences. The committee commends the Army 
for increasing investments in basic research by over $75.0 
million relative to the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The 
committee notes that the previous Director of Defense Research 
and Engineering has called for increases in fundamental 
research of $300.0 to $500.0 million per year to support 
focused efforts in discovery and innovation on crucial problems 
for national security. Consistent with that effort, the 
committee recommends a series of increases to support mission-
informed basic research.
    The committee recommends an increase in PE 61102A of: $3.0 
million for research on advanced energy storage technologies; 
$1.5 million for research on drug resistant bacterial 
infections; $1.5 million for research on understanding and 
forecasting natural environments to support global military 
operations; and $1.5 million for modeling and simulation 
studies of organic semiconductor materials and devices.
    The budget request also included $77.0 million in PE 61103A 
for university research initiatives. The committee recommends a 
number of increases in PE 61103A to support Army mission areas, 
including: $2.0 million for research on the low temperature 
performance of military vehicles; $2.0 million for research on 
nanomaterials for lightweight composite systems; $1.2 million 
for research on training and simulation to support urban 
terrain operating capabilities; $2.5 million for nanoscale 
biosensor research; and $1.5 million for development of 
nanocomposite technologies for wireless energy applications.

Network science and technology research center

    The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 61104A for 
the establishment of a network science and technology research 
center. The committee commends the Army for its continued 
commitment to investments in basic research, especially in the 
face of severe budget constraints due to the current operations 
and reset of the force. The committee also commends the Army 
for its new investments in network science and believes that 
these investments can lead to significant enhancements in 
operational capabilities.
    The committee notes with concern that the current Army plan 
calls for the majority of funding for this effort to go to the 
establishment of a single research center. The committee 
believes that this approach ironically fails to take advantage 
of many of the benefits of networked, distributed research 
efforts. The committee believes that these include the ability 
to have a multitude of geographically diverse, 
interdisciplinary researchers working collaboratively on 
military network research issues, using shared or existing 
resources to reduce overall cost, and exploiting advances in 
computing, collaboration, and other information technologies to 
make research and technology development efficient and 
seamless.
    The committee is also concerned that the Army's pre-
selection of a site for the center has created a situation in 
which very few worthy academic institutions can legitimately 
compete to manage the center, thereby severely limiting the 
Army's ability to access the highest quality network science 
research across the nation. The committee also notes that the 
Army's management strategy for current university affiliated 
research centers faces some major problems. These include the 
fact that the centers and their relatively large basic research 
funding levels limit the Army's ability to reach out to a broad 
spectrum of universities to fund innovative research that would 
supplement investments in the focused centers, as well as a 
lack of planning for the process of terminating the centers, so 
that the Army's research programs can remain responsive to 
military needs and scientific opportunity.
    Finally, the committee notes that the National Research 
Council's 2007 report entitled ``Strategy for an Army Center 
for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation'' 
concluded that, ``based on Army needs, the NSTEC [Network 
Science, Technology, and Experimentation Center] should be a 
hybrid operation consisting of two or three centralized 
facilities having interconnectivity to a variety of distributed 
supporting elements.'' The current Army proposed plan and 
budget is not consistent with this recommended hybrid approach.
    Therefore, the committee directs that the network science 
and technology research center be established as a virtual 
center, with the majority of funding going to a networked group 
of investigators selected on the basis of technical merit of 
proposed research. The committee directs that only up to $2.0 
million of the $10.0 million authorized in PE 61104A for the 
establishment of a network science and technology research 
center shall be available for the purpose of infrastructure and 
facilities development at the proposed U.S. Army Aberdeen 
Proving Ground, Maryland location. The remaining funds are to 
be used for other program purposes, primarily the funding of 
competitive projects to a diverse group of single investigators 
and research teams who will participate in the virtual network 
science center. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to report to the congressional defense committees on the status 
of the virtual center, the use of authorized funding, and the 
methods of selection of industry and academic participants in 
the virtual center, no later than December 31, 2008.

Army materials research

    The budget request included $27.0 million in PE 62105A for 
applied research on materials technology. The committee notes 
that the Army's Vehicle Armor Technology Objective seeks to 
provide comprehensive solutions to threats that will be faced 
by the Future Combat Systems ground vehicles. In support of 
that objective, the committee recommends increases of: $2.0 
million for research on lightweight composites for combat and 
tactical vehicle applications and $1.7 million for development 
of materials processing technologies to support production of 
lightweight armor systems.
    To help reduce life cycle costs of Army ground and aviation 
assets, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 
PE 62105A for development of cold spray coating technologies 
for repair applications.
    The committee notes that one of the major threats currently 
facing deployed forces is improvised explosive devices (IED). 
To support efforts to better technically characterize these 
threats, the committee recommends an additional $475,000 in PE 
62105A for development of simulations of IED blast effects.
    Finally, in the May 2007 report to Congress on the Defense 
Nanotechnology Research and Development program, the Director 
of Defense Research and Engineering indicated that sustained 
support was necessary to continue development of novel 
nanotechnology-based systems and devices, and that increased 
support was needed to further nanomanufacturing efforts. 
Consistent with that report, the committee recommends an 
additional $2.0 million for the development of advanced 
magnetic nanosensor technologies, and an additional $1.5 
million for the development of advanced nanomanufacturing 
capabilities for multifunctional sensors.

Advanced Army energy and power technologies

    The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Energy 
Security highlighted the critical security, cost, and 
performance issues that currently face and will increasingly 
handicap the Department of Defense (DOD) due to its 
overreliance on costly, sometimes unreliable sources of energy. 
The DSB study noted that increased investments in research on 
energy and power technologies were warranted in order to 
address this issue, stating, ``. . . technologies with the 
potential to make incremental improvements often are not 
significant enough to attract much funding and are 
disadvantaged in their competition for deployment into 
programs.'' To support Army efforts to address emerging energy 
and power requirements and enable new operational capabilities, 
the committee makes a series of increases for energy and power 
research activities.
    The National Research Council's 2004 report entitled 
``Meeting the Energy Needs of Future Warriors'' noted a number 
of technical challenges for battery and fuel cell development 
and commented that ``the challenge is to make them smaller, 
lighter, cheaper, more reliable, and more energy-dense without 
sacrificing safety.'' To support the achievement of this 
technological goal, the committee recommends increases of: $2.0 
million in PE 62120A for development of hydrogen battery 
technologies; $2.0 million in PE 62705A for soldier portable 
fuel cell technologies; and $2.0 million in PE 63734A for 
direct methanol fuel cell development.
    The DSB noted that there are a number of executive order 
and statutory mandates that are driving the Department to 
improve the energy efficiency of its facilities and to utilize 
alternative fuels in its non-tactical alternative fueled 
vehicles. In order to support the development of technologies 
that could help DOD meet those goals, the committee recommends 
a number of funding increases for investments in advanced 
energy power and technologies for vehicle applications. The 
committee recommends increases for advanced technology 
development on combat vehicles of: $6.0 million in PE 63005A 
for the development of military hybrid engines; $3.0 million 
for advanced lithium battery technologies; $5.0 million to 
support development of next-generation non-tactical fuel cell 
vehicle technologies; $2.0 million for the development of 
nickel metal hydride batteries for military vehicles; $10.0 
million for an advanced military vehicle battery development 
and testing initiative; $3.0 million for the development of 
hydraulic hybrid vehicle systems; $4.0 million for development 
of hybrid blast resistant vehicles; $3.5 million for the 
demonstration of hydraulic hybrid retrofit technologies for 
legacy Army vehicles; $1.0 million for the development of solid 
hydrogen storage technologies; $2.0 million for development of 
integrated power management and control technologies; $3.5 
million for the development of logistics fuel processors; $5.0 
million for development of electric drive technologies for 
tactical wheeled vehicles; and $12.0 million for Army power and 
energy research infrastructure and equipment.
    The DSB task force also called for DOD to address critical 
infrastructure security issues that result from energy use. To 
help address these infrastructure issues, the committee 
recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 63734A for the 
development of fuel cell systems to provide power for 
continuity of operations missions.
    The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program has identified 
power and energy technologies, especially batteries, and 
continuing work to leverage commercial technology development, 
as a top science and technology priority. The committee also 
recognizes the value of dual-use research and technology 
research and development in the area of energy and power 
systems for vehicles. To support these efforts the committee is 
recommending a series of increases in applied research on dual-
use energy and power vehicle systems. The committee recommends 
increases of: $1.5 million in PE 62601A for research on next-
generation vehicle design and biofuel technologies; $2.0 
million for the development of hybrid electric vehicle battery 
technologies for FCS; $4.0 million for development and testing 
of fuel cells for medium and heavy duty vehicles; and $2.0 
million for advanced lightweight electric drive technologies. 
Additionally, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million in PE 62601A for research on novel military fuels.

Army aviation technologies

    The budget request included $17.0 million in PE 62211A for 
applied research for aviation technology. The committee notes 
that the United States Central Command has identified the 
development of standoff and persistent observation of the 
improvised explosive device ``kill chain'' by advanced sensors 
using unmanned air systems as a high science and technology 
priority. To support the development and maturation of that 
capability the committee recommends an increase in PE 62211A of 
$2.5 million for research on slowed rotor technologies for 
unmanned air systems.

Sniper detection systems

    The budget request included $17.0 million in PE 62308A for 
advanced concepts and simulation. The committee notes the 
continued threats that snipers and mortars pose to deployed 
forces, especially in urban settings. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development of 
wearable sniper detection systems to aid in localizing sniper 
fire and mortar launches.

Army vehicle reliability technologies

    The budget request included $55.2 million in PE 62601A for 
applied research for combat vehicle and automotive 
technologies. The committee notes that reducing the life cycle 
costs of weapon systems is an important thrust area for the 
Department of Defense, especially through enhancements in 
system reliability in harsh operating environments and at high 
operating tempos. To support the development of highly reliable 
systems, the committee recommends increases in PE 62601A of 
$4.5 million for the development of computer simulation tools 
for vehicle design and optimization, and $2.0 million for 
modeling of ground vehicle reliability and condition-based 
maintenance.

Unmanned ground vehicle weaponization

    The budget request included $30.6 million in PE 62624A for 
weapons and munitions technology. The committee has been 
supportive of the development of unmanned ground systems to 
reduce casualties and to enable new operational concepts and 
capabilities. The committee notes that the Near Autonomous 
Unmanned Systems Army Technology Objective is developing 
robotic technologies for future unmanned systems, and working 
to transition technologies to programs such as Future Combat 
Systems. To support these efforts, the committee recommends an 
increase of $3.5 million to develop remotely controlled 
unmanned systems with lethal and non-lethal capabilities.

Standoff explosives detection technologies

    The budget request included $21.8 million in PE 62712A for 
applied research on countermine systems. The committee notes 
that the standoff detection of explosives is a capability that 
is of critical concern to the Department of Defense as it seeks 
to combat the use of improvised explosive devices in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional 
$3.0 million in PE 62712A for the development of standoff 
explosives detection technologies.

Soldier positioning technologies

    The budget request included $24.0 million in PE 62782A for 
command, control, and communications technologies. The 
committee notes that the 2003 National Research Council study 
entitled ``Science and Technology for Army Homeland Security'' 
found that ``the current system for gaining situational 
awareness in an urban environment is inadequate,'' and 
recommended the development of robust technologies to address 
this capability gap. To support this recommendation, the 
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62782A 
for research on portable positioning and timing devices for use 
in urban terrains.

Military engineering technologies

    The budget request included $52.1 million in PE 62784A for 
military engineering technologies. The committee notes that the 
Battle Space Terrain Reasoning and Awareness--Battle Command 
Army Technology Objective seeks to provide actionable 
information relating to terrain, atmospheric, and weather 
impacts on deployed assets. To support this objective, the 
committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for 
geosciences and atmospheric research.
    The committee notes that the Modular Protective Systems for 
Future Force Assets Army Technology Objective seeks to develop 
systems that enhance the protection and survivability of 
personnel and systems from conventional and asymmetric threats. 
To support these efforts, the committee recommends an increase 
of $1.5 million in PE 62784A for research on low-cost, high-
performance nanocomposite panels for enhanced blast and 
ballistic protection, and an increase of $1.5 million in PE 
62786A for development of ballistic materials for force 
protection applications.
    The committee notes that deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and other regions of the world are putting on forward operating 
bases infrastructure at unprecedented risk. Strategic, 
tactical, and resource constraints sometimes restrict the 
nature and scope of construction for these bases, yet the bases 
must be hardened for long-term use and asymmetric terrorist and 
insurgent attack.
    The committee is aware of a number of efforts at service 
laboratories, small businesses, and universities developing new 
force protection technologies that can counter current and 
emerging threats to bases. Given the long-term need for 
enhanced and rapidly deployable force protection at bases in 
volatile operating zones, the committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to develop a report outlining a plan for addressing 
deployable force protection infrastructure technology. The 
report should address current and emerging capability gaps, 
specific research and development goals to be accomplished to 
address those gaps, funding needs to address the gaps and 
accelerate infrastructure force protection technology 
deployment, and the value of creating research centers to 
partner with service laboratories on promising research and 
technology areas. The report should be delivered to the 
committee not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 
of this bill.

Combat feeding technologies

    The budget request included $21.9 million in PE 62786A for 
applied research for warfighter technologies. The committee 
notes that reduction in logistics costs is a goal of the 
Department of Defense and is being pursued through a number of 
efforts, including the use of alternative energy technologies. 
To support these efforts, the committee recommends an 
additional $1.5 million for the development of energy 
efficient, high performance mobile kitchen units.

Army medical research

    The budget request included $75.4 million in PE 62787A for 
applied research on medical technologies. The committee notes 
that Army medical research and technology protects and treats 
personnel to sustain combat strength, reduce casualties, and 
save lives. The committee recommends a number of funding 
increases in PE 62787A to support these efforts and to help 
respond to a variety of medical care issues resulting from 
current operations or to leverage emerging research and 
technology.
    The Army has a stated technology objective to develop fluid 
resuscitation to reduce injury and loss of life on the 
battlefield. In support of this, the committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million to support clinical research on dried 
blood technologies.
    To help military surgeons find new limb-sparing techniques 
to save injured extremities, avoid amputations, and preserve 
and restore the function of injured extremities, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million to continue peer-
reviewed research efforts on extremity war injuries. To support 
the treatment of blast injuries, the committee recommends 
increases of: $3.5 million for traumatic brain injury research; 
$2.5 million for bio-engineering research to enhance soldier 
survivability; $2.5 million for post traumatic stress disorder 
research; $5.0 million for modeling of blast wave effects; and 
$1.0 million for research on injury biomechanics.
    The committee notes that Army infectious disease efforts 
focus on medical countermeasures against naturally occurring 
diseases of military importance. To support those research 
efforts the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 
for research on treatments for dengue fever.
    Finally, the committee notes that next-generation 
technologies will develop medical technologies and enable human 
performance improvements that could radically transform 
military operations. To support next-generation research 
efforts in military medical technologies the committee 
recommends increases of: $2.0 million for genetics research to 
enhance soldier survival in extreme environments; $2.0 million 
for research on nanomaterials to improve biological processes 
such as targeted drug delivery; and $8.0 million to initiate a 
military photomedicine program that would fund single 
investigators and research centers to develop optics and 
photonics based technologies to perform combat casualty care 
missions.

Biosensor controller systems

    The budget request included $46.8 million in PE 63001A for 
development of advanced technologies for warfighters. The 
January 2008 report to Congress entitled ``Efforts and Programs 
of the Department of Defense Relating to the Prevention, 
Mitigation, and Treatment of Blast Injuries'' identified the 
development of diagnostics for traumatic brain injury as a 
blast injury research knowledge gap. To support addressing that 
gap, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 
63001A for the development of biosensor systems to evaluate 
treatment response in this and other disorders, as well as to 
potentially serve to enhance operator-machine interface 
technologies.

Army medical advanced technology development

    The budget request included $59.0 million in PE 63002A for 
medical advanced technology development. The committee 
continues to recognize the critical need to advance military 
medical technologies to address battlefield injuries. The 
committee has taken a number of steps to advance these efforts, 
including the establishment of a Department of Defense (DOD) 
initiative to prevent, mitigate, and treat blast injuries in 
section 256 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163). To support these and 
similar efforts, as well as to support a number of Army 
technology objectives in medical technologies, the committee 
recommends a number of increases in medical research 
investments.
    The committee notes that improvised explosive devices have 
created a new set of challenges for medical personnel in 
dealing with soft tissue and bone damage. The committee 
recommends an increase of $5.5 million for research on the 
treatment of combat wounds. To help address the treatment of 
blast injuries, in coordination with the Blast Mitigation 
Initiative, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million for the development of technologies to efficiently 
detect and assess mild traumatic brain injuries, and an 
increase of $3.0 million for remote vital signs monitoring 
systems.
    The committee recognizes the continuing need to develop 
advanced lower limb prostheses for battlefield amputees. The 
committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for the 
development of advanced lower limb prosthesis technologies.
    The committee notes that the Battlefield Treatment of 
Fractures and Soft Tissue Trauma Care Defense Technology 
Objective includes a specific challenge to improve tissue 
viability technologies. In support of this goal, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million for research on novel 
regenerative medical research to treat battlefield injuries. In 
addition, to support advances in military capabilities to treat 
combat injuries, the committee recommends increases of: $2.0 
million for the development of tracheal intubation technologies 
for use on the battlefield; $2.0 million for research on 
bioelectric interactions to support wound healing capabilities; 
and $5.0 million to develop advanced combat wound dressings.
    The committee notes that the use of information 
technologies can serve to make military medical operations more 
successful and efficient, and can potentially lead to 
considerable cost savings through the use of commercial 
technologies. To promote the use of advanced information 
systems and technologies in DOD medical operations, the 
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to support 
modernization of joint medical logistics efforts and an 
increase of $2.0 million for the development of online medical 
training programs for military personnel.
    Finally, the committee recommends an increase of $13.0 
million to support the continuing Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses 
Research Program. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to utilize the authorized funding for this program to 
undertake research on Gulf War illnesses. The committee directs 
that activities under the program should include studies of 
treatments for the complex of symptoms commonly referred to as 
Gulf War Illness, and identification of objective markers for 
Gulf War Illness. The committee recommends that no studies 
based on psychiatric illness and psychological stress as the 
central cause of Gulf War Illness be funded under the program. 
The committee directs that the program be conducted using 
competitive selection and peer review for the identification of 
research with the highest technical merit and military value. 
Further, the committee directs that this program be coordinated 
with similar activities in the Department of Veterans Affairs 
and the National Institutes of Health.

Army aviation advanced technology development

    The budget request included $57.3 million in PE 63003A for 
advanced technology development on aviation systems. The 
committee continues to be supportive of efforts to use unmanned 
systems on the battlefield. To support the development of new 
capabilities for unmanned systems, the committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million for the development of unmanned 
systems for the precision delivery of supplies to friendly 
forces.
    The committee notes that the Army's Network-Enabled Command 
and Control Technology Objective seeks to develop systems that 
provide network-centric capabilities to the future force. In 
support of the objective, the committee recommends an increase 
of $3.5 million in PE 63003A for technologies to enable rapid 
tactical integration and fielding of interoperable aviation 
systems.
    Finally, in support of the Army's Rotorcraft Survivability 
Technology Objective the committee recommends an increase of 
$1.5 million in PE 63003A for the development of lightweight 
armor systems to reduce helicopter vulnerabilities to 
battlefield threats, and an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
63270A for development of laser systems for aircraft missile 
defense.

Army combat vehicle technologies

    The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63005A for 
advanced technology development on combat vehicles. The 
committee notes with concern that this is nearly 20 percent 
lower than the fiscal year 2008 budget request for this 
account, despite the fact that: current Army operations are 
heavily dependent on tactical vehicles; the Department of 
Defense is seeking to make ground vehicles more survivable 
against a growing number of battlefield threats, including 
explosively formed penetrators, rocket propelled grenades 
(RPGs), and improvised explosive devices (IEDs); the Army's 
primary transformation effort is the Future Combat Systems 
(FCS) program involving a large number of new vehicle 
technologies; and the Department is also seeking to develop and 
field novel energy and power vehicle technologies to reduce 
costs and improve performance.
    The Vehicle Armor Technology Army Technology Objective 
seeks to provide comprehensive solutions for FCS ground 
vehicles to address a variety of threats, including mines, 
RPGs, IEDs, and other threats. Consistent with that objective, 
the committee recommends a number of funding increases to 
enhance vehicle survivability. The committee recommends 
increases of: $2.0 million for the development of composite 
armored cabs; $2.5 million for development of hostile fire 
detection systems; and $4.0 million for development of 
windshield armor systems.
    The Prognostics and Diagnostics for Operational Readiness 
and Condition Based Maintenance Army Technology Objective has a 
goal to improve near-term and FCS commodity readiness and 
maintainability through improvements in the capability to 
detect and predict equipment health status and performance. In 
coordination with this objective and as part of efforts to 
improve the readiness of Army forces, the committee recommends 
increases of: $5.0 million to support development of advanced 
thermal and oil management systems to reduce vehicle life cycle 
costs; $4.2 million for the development of test facilities to 
evaluate advanced combat vehicle power train designs; $4.0 
million to enhance Army capabilities for the rapid integration 
of new technologies onto military vehicles; $3.5 million for 
development of advanced vehicle prognostics systems; and $2.0 
million to support ground vehicle fastening and joining 
research.
    Finally, the committee notes that the Army's future force 
technology thrust in unmanned systems seeks to enhance the 
effectiveness of unmanned systems through improved perception, 
cooperative behaviors, and increased autonomy. In support of 
those efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 
million to continue the unmanned ground vehicle initiative.

Diverse threat sensor development

    The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63005A for 
combat vehicle and automotive technology programs. The 
committee notes that the Army has a need to develop systems 
that coordinate unattended, airborne, man-portable, and 
vehicle-mounted sensor inputs to identify and characterize 
threats in complex terrain, including urban environments. The 
committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 63005A 
for development of systems that better combine sensor data to 
provide enhanced threat warning capabilities.

Army training technologies

    The budget request included $18.9 million in PE 63015A for 
next-generation training and simulation systems. The committee 
notes that the Army's Institute of Creative Technologies is 
working on the development of a variety of simulations to 
support the training requirements of the Army. The Army's 
advanced simulation technology technology thrust area seeks to 
provide increasingly realistic training and mission rehearsal 
environments to support military missions. In order to support 
development of advanced combat training simulators, the 
committee recommends increases in PE 63015A of $3.5 million for 
the development of joint fires training systems, and $2.0 
million for modeling architectures to support battle command 
simulation and training.

Deactivation of military explosives

    The budget request included $10.6 million in PE 63103A for 
explosives demilitarization technology. To support continuing 
efforts to develop environmentally sound methods of disposing 
munitions, the committee recommends an increase of $500,000 to 
support research on the safe deactivation of military 
explosives.

Army missile and rocket technologies

    The budget request included $64.0 million in PE 63313A for 
advanced missile and rocket technologies. The committee notes 
the continuing need for development of advanced high speed, 
precision strike weaponry. The committee recommends an increase 
of $1.0 million to support studies of long range hypersonic 
interceptor technology, in coordination with the efforts of the 
Joint Technology Office for Hypersonics, previously established 
by the committee.

Situational awareness technologies

    The budget request included $39.9 million in PE 63710A for 
advanced night vision technologies. The Army's intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance future force technology thrust 
area seeks to develop persistent and integrated situational 
awareness capabilities to provide actionable intelligence to 
support military operations. To support these efforts, the 
committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for research 
on short range electro-optical sensor systems to support Future 
Combat Systems.

Unique item ID data management research

    The budget request included $600,000 in PE 63024A for the 
ongoing development of the Army's unique item identification 
(UID) research. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million for the continued research and development of an 
enterprise-wide software application to support Army programs 
that are required to comply with unique item mandates. UID 
research is permitting the Army to better manage its logistic 
activities, including accurate, non-intrusive item 
identification and data collection and enhanced unit-pack level 
visibility.

Advanced electronics integration

    The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 63305A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for 
advanced electronics integration. The committee recommends an 
increase of $4.0 million in PE 63305A for advanced electronics 
integration to advance state-of-the-art weapon system 
electronics, with the goal of reducing the size, weight, and 
cost of electronic components, while reducing hazardous 
materials used in such advanced electronics. This effort 
supports Army needs for research, prototyping, testing, and 
production technologies that have the potential to produce more 
efficient, higher performance, less hazardous and lower cost 
electronics.

Advanced environmental controls

    The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 63305A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for 
advanced environmental control systems. The committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63305A for the 
development of thermal management control systems that can 
support sensors and electronic systems which operate in the 
harsh environmental conditions required by missile defense 
systems. The committee notes that advanced environmental 
controls have applicability to a variety of military systems 
that operate in harsh environments.

Advanced fuel cell research

    The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 63305A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for 
advanced fuel cell research. The committee recommends an 
increase of $3.5 million in PE 63305A for the development of 
advanced fuel cell technology for applications in Army space 
and missile defense systems. The committee notes that 
lightweight, reliable, and cost-effective power sources are 
important components of complex weapon systems such as space 
and missile defense systems. Advanced fuel cells would have 
applicability to a wide variety of military systems.

Radiation hardening initiative

    The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 63305A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but no funds for 
radiation hardening integration. The subcommittee recommends an 
increase of $3.0 million in PE 63305A for a radiation hardening 
initiative to improve understanding of radiation transport and 
effects, modeling and simulation tools, and radiation-hardened 
design approaches. This activity should be coordinated with the 
Joint Radiation Hardened Electronics Oversight Council.

High-altitude integration testbed

    The budget request included $20.0 million in PE 63308A for 
Army missile defense systems integration (space), but no funds 
for continued development of the high-altitude integration 
testbed. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 
in PE 63308A for the Army's high-altitude integration testbed 
to integrate and test payloads for high altitude airships and 
unmanned aerial vehicles for long-loiter missions. Such systems 
could provide enhanced information to military forces.

Air and missile defense architecture analysis

    The budget request included $116.4 million in PE 63327A for 
air and missile defense engineering, but included no funds for 
development of an integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) 
architecture analysis program. The committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63327A for continued development 
of an IAMD architecture analysis program to improve the 
integration and coordination of air and missile defense 
capabilities into a coherent system of systems to defend 
against aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. The 
Army has been selected as the lead service for joint IAMD. This 
effort would support the Army's lead role, and its development 
of an IAMD Battle Command System.

Stryker active protection system

    The budget request included $108.0 million in PE 63653A for 
Advanced Tank Armament System (ATAS), but provided no funds for 
development of a Stryker active protection system. The 
committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 63653A 
for the Stryker active protection system.

Vibration management enhancement research

    The budget request included $71.6 million in PE 64201A to 
develop hardware and software improvements for the Army's 
aviation system. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million to continue research and development of advanced 
diagnostic tools to measure vibration in the aircraft and 
develop possible mitigation measures. This research utilizes an 
embedded condition-based maintenance system developed to detect 
mechanical faults in transmissions, gearboxes, main and tail 
rotors, and the entire power train.

Next-generation combat helmet development

    The budget request included $42.4 million in PE 64601A for 
infantry support weapons, but no funds were provided for next-
generation combat helmet development. Funds provided would 
support the development of a next-generation combat helmet that 
is safer and significantly lighter. The committee recommends an 
increase of $3.0 million in PE 64601A for combat helmet 
development.

High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle modernization research

    The budget request included no funding in PE 64642A for 
advanced technology development for the Army's legacy light 
tactical wheeled vehicles, including technology enhancements 
and modernization activities for the High Mobility Multi-
purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) in the areas of survivability, 
mobility, and energy and power.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
64642A for the HMMWV program manager to continue efforts to 
develop, test, and integrate advanced technologies into the 
HMMWV. Previous technology integration activities have included 
improved cooling systems, seats and seat belt enhancements, 
gunner restraints, vehicle intercom systems, and fire 
suppression systems.

Non-Line of Sight-Launch System anti-tamper research

    The budget request included $200.1 million in Research and 
Development, Army for the Non-Line of Sight-Launch System 
(NLOS-LS). The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 
in PE 64646A to continue funding anti-tamper research. Anti-
tamper protection of weapon systems is a growing concern in 
U.S. national security planning. In September 2007, the Defense 
Science Board issued a report entitled ``Mission Impact of 
Foreign Influence on Department of Defense Software'' that 
found that given the military's increasing dependence on 
software-based programs, ``current systems designs, assurance 
methodologies, acquisition procedures, and knowledge of 
adversarial capabilities and intentions are inadequate to the 
magnitude of the threat.'' In January 2008, the Government 
Accountability Office reported that military program managers 
lack clear guidance on what information they need to protect 
and are challenged in selecting anti-tamper solutions because 
they do not have the tools needed to determine how much 
protection is required. This additional funding will complete 
ongoing NLOS-LS anti-tamper development activities, including 
significant test and validation by Red Teams and government 
agencies.

Future Combat System

    The budget request included $3.6 billion for the Future 
Combat System (FCS) program, the Army's comprehensive force 
modernization program. The committee remains committed to the 
modernization of the Army and is hopeful that the FCS program 
will provide, as promised, an appropriate and affordable 
combination of advanced technologies to support operational 
concepts that will ensure future success across the spectrum of 
conflict. The ambitiousness, complexity, and risk associated 
with FCS have resulted in many challenges over the years that 
the Army must continue to overcome.
    Therefore, the committee agrees that this program merits 
careful, even special oversight. Recognizing this, Congress 
directed in section 211 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) that the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) submit an annual report 
on the program's progress. Moreover, in section 214 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), Congress directed the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a milestone review following FCS's 
preliminary design review, now scheduled for April 2009. 
Consequently, fiscal year 2009, as the GAO notes in its March 
2008 annual report, is a critical year for this program.
    The GAO's March 2008 annual review of the FCS program noted 
that it will be difficult for the Army to demonstrate firm 
requirements and technical maturity in time for its preliminary 
design and Secretary of Defense reviews next year. Consistent 
with other GAO reports, the committee believes that instability 
in funding could make that challenge more difficult. The 
committee remains convinced that FCS merits support and stable 
funding, and therefore recommends full funding for FCS as 
requested by the Army.

Urban training development

    The budget request included $35.4 million in PE 64715A for 
engineering development of non-system training devices. The 
committee recognizes the importance of training concepts and 
systems for joint military operations in urban terrain and 
culture to increase unit effectiveness at reduced operating 
costs. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in 
PE 64715A for development of systems for joint military 
operations in urban terrain and cultural training.

Extended range sniper rifle research

    The budget request included $52.1 million in PE 64802A for 
weapons and munitions--system demonstration and development. 
This program element funds multiple efforts for engineering 
development of weapons and munitions systems. The committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for extended range 
sniper rifle research.

Army test and target development

    The budget request included $13.5 million in PE 64258A for 
target simulator development. The committee continues to 
support Department of Defense (DOD) investments in targets and 
test and evaluation infrastructure and capabilities, which 
serve to enhance force readiness, improve systems capabilities, 
and reduce life cycle costs. The committee recommends an 
increase of $3.0 million in PE 64258A to support development of 
advanced fixed-wing aerial targets to support warfighters 
facing current and future air defense threats.
    The budget request included $74.6 million in PE 65602A for 
technical test instrumentation and targets. The committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for enhancements in 
laser and modeling systems to support testing of chemical and 
biological defense systems.
    The budget request included $2.8 million in PE 65605A for 
the DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility (HELSTF). The committee 
is concerned that this level of support will not preserve all 
of the critical laser test functions that DOD requires, 
including the Missile Defense Agency. Further, the lack of 
funding will force a ``mothballing'' of test facilities and 
lead to a loss of technical expertise and huge startup costs 
when the facility is needed for potential use by the range of 
advanced high power laser systems under development. The 
committee also notes that the required analyses and reports on 
high energy laser testing from the fiscal year 2008 
authorization reports have yet to be delivered. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE 65605A 
to support the operations of HELSTF.

Javelin modernization

    The budget request included $1.5 million in PE 23802A for 
other missile product improvement programs, but provided no 
funds for the modernization of the Javelin anti-armor missile. 
Funds provided would initiate a Javelin modernization program 
that would increase the missile's effective range to beyond 
line-of-sight. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in PE 23802A for Javelin modernization development.

Global Combat Support System, the Logistics Modernization Program and 
        Product Lifecycle Management Plus

    The budget request included $104.9 million in PE 33141A for 
the Global Combat Support System (GCSS), $82.0 million in 
Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), for the Logistics 
Modernization Program (LMP), and $42.4 million in PE 33141A for 
Product Lifecycle Management Plus (PLM+).
    In July 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
reported that the Army would be investing approximately $5.0 
billion over the next several years to develop and implement 
their Enterprise Resource Programs (ERP). The GAO noted that 
this significant investment was being made without the benefit 
of a comprehensive business enterprise architecture, concept of 
operations, and effective portfolio management. For example, 
the three logistics systems, GCSS, LMP, and PLM+, utilize 
separate financial systems and different versions of SAP 
software, making future consolidation extremely complex. In 
addition, as the Army itself reports, prior to 2006 the Army's 
functional approach to governance led to development of 
completely disparate ERPs. In a November 21, 2007 Acquisition 
Decision Memorandum (ADM) the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, John Young, seemingly validates the GAO 
conclusions, stating that additional work was necessary in 
synchronizing the separate components of the Army's enterprise 
resource planning strategy. While the committee expects the 
three logistics ERP efforts--GCSS, LMP, and PLM+--to continue 
development and fielding, synergies should be explored and 
realized. On March 14, 2008 Secretary Young signed ADMs for two 
Army ERPs, General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) and 
GCSS, mandating one such efficiency by directing the 
integration on the previously separate financial subset of GCSS 
with GFEBS. Further efficiencies should be explored across the 
Army's logistics ERPs.
    The committee recommends decreases of $30.0 million in PE 
33141A for GCSS, $20.0 million for LMP from OMA, and $10.0 
million in PE 33141A for PLM+. While the committee has 
historically been supportive of the Department of Defense's 
business systems modernization efforts, it is concerned by the 
Army's functionally ``stovepiped'' approach to its ERP systems.

Army manufacturing technologies

    The budget request included $69.1 million in PE 78045A for 
development of manufacturing technologies. The committee 
continues to support increasing funding for manufacturing 
research and technology to support the preservation of the 
defense industrial base and reduce costs of weapons systems. To 
enhance Army manufacturing research efforts, the committee 
recommends increases in PE 78045A of: $2.5 million for advanced 
nanotechnology manufacturing research; $3.5 million for 
castings research to improve performance and lower the cost of 
weapons systems; $3.0 million for research to improve machine 
tool accuracy and performance; and $2.0 million for 
manufacturing process improvements to reduce costs of body 
armor plates.

                                  Navy



Navy basic research

    The budget request included $103.7 million in PE 61103N for 
university research initiatives. The committee notes that the 
2007 Marine Corps Science and Technology (S&T) Strategic Plan 
lists the development of advanced robotic systems for ground 
combat in order to ``take humans out of direct involvement in 
hazardous and exceptionally arduous missions'' as a technology 
objective. In support of achieving that objective, the 
committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for research 
on automated robotic technologies for landmine detection.
    The 2007 Naval S&T Strategic Plan identifies a specific 
technology objective of adapting defense systems to the 
environment, especially with respect to space environmental 
effects. To help address this concern, the committee recommends 
an increase of $1.0 million in PE 61103N for research on novel 
radiation hardened microelectronics.
    The budget request included $407.3 million in PE 61153N for 
defense research sciences programs. The committee recommends an 
increase of $1.5 million in PE 61153N for research on quantum 
computing and quantum mechanics that can support efforts to 
enhance Navy sensor and communications systems. The 2004 
National Research Council study entitled ``Advanced Energetic 
Materials'' characterized the U.S. effort on research and 
development of energetic materials as ``suboptimal,'' but 
stated that the materials are ``a key component of the nation's 
defense strategies.'' To help address this identified gap, the 
committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 61153N 
for basic research on energetic materials.
    To support efforts to enhance math and science education 
nationally and develop the next generation of clearable 
scientists and engineers to work on national security issues, 
the committee recommends an additional $1.5 million in PE 
61153N for science and technology educational outreach efforts.

Manufacturing engineering training

    The budget request included $407.3 million in PE 61153N for 
defense research sciences. The committee notes that National 
Science and Technology Council's March 2008 report entitled 
``Manufacturing the Future: Federal Priorities for 
Manufacturing R&D'' highlighted the role that federal 
investments could play in enhancing the domestic manufacturing 
base through improvements in workforce training and education. 
The report cited a 2005 National Association of Manufacturers 
skills gap survey of more than 800 manufacturing businesses, 
which found that 81 percent were experiencing ``severe'' (13 
percent) or ``moderate'' (68 percent) shortages of skilled 
workers overall, and 90 percent reported shortages of skilled 
production employees. These shortages lead to deficiencies in 
the defense industrial base and therefore weaken the Department 
of Defense production and supply chain. To help address this 
issue, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in 
PE 61153N for manufacturing engineering educational outreach 
programs.

Navy power projection research

    The budget request included $79.9 million in PE 62114N for 
applied research on power projection technologies. The 
committee notes that the 2007 Defense Science Board Task Force 
on Directed Energy Weapons noted that science and technology 
(S&T) funding for laser weapons should be focused on 
concentrated development of free electron lasers for ship 
defense. In support of that recommendation, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.5 million for high power free 
electron laser development. To support the Naval S&T Strategic 
Plan objective of developing energy storage technologies, the 
committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 62114N 
for the development of fuel cells for unmanned aerial vehicle 
applications. Finally, the committee recommends an increase of 
$1.5 million for research on advanced electron sources for use 
in next-generation radar systems.

Navy force protection research

    The budget request included $131.3 million in PE 62123N for 
applied research on force protection technologies. The 2007 
Naval S&T [science and technology] Strategic Plan identifies 
the development of advanced materials in platform construction 
to support the production of more survivable platforms as a key 
technology objective. In support of that objective, the 
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for composite 
materials research for high speed craft, and an increase of 
$2.0 million for research to reduce the structural weight and 
improve signature characteristics of special operations 
combatant craft through the use of lightweight composite 
materials.
    The Naval S&T Strategic Plan also has a technology 
objective of enhancing homeland and port defense monitoring. In 
support of this effort, the committee recommends an additional 
$3.5 million in PE 62123N for development of deployable, under 
hull inspection technologies. Consistent with the Navy's High 
Energy and Pulse Power Technology Objective, which seeks to 
develop energy storage power system architectures and pulsed 
power control systems, the committee recommends an additional 
$3.0 million to develop energy delivery technologies for 
advanced naval weapons systems.
    In support of Office of Naval Research efforts to improve 
towed sonar array reliability and enhance situational 
awareness, the committee recommends an additional $2.5 million 
for modeling and simulation efforts on towed sonar array system 
reliability. In support of Navy objectives to reduce the cost 
of high-resolution infrared focal plane arrays for missile 
seekers and other applications, and in conjunction with ongoing 
related Army and Missile Defense Agency efforts, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for infrared materials 
research.
    Finally, consistent with Navy efforts to identify new 
coating technologies for military equipment, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 62123N for 
development of novel surface coatings to improve performance 
and reliability of defense systems.

Situational awareness processing technologies

    The budget request included $36.5 million in PE 62131M for 
applied research on Marine Corps landing force technologies. 
The committee notes that one of the Marine Corps' science and 
technology objectives is the development of ``improved 
situational awareness for warfighters at all echelons.'' 
Consistent with that objective, the committee recommends an 
additional $4.5 million for applied research on the 
distribution of tactical information to individual warfighters.

Acoustic research and test capabilities

    The budget request included $93.9 million in PE 62236N for 
applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies. The 
committee notes that the 2007 Strategic Plan for DOD 
(Department of Defense) T&E (Test and Evaluation) Resources 
stated that ``improved acoustic and radio frequency (RF) 
signature measurement capability is necessary to adequately 
conduct T&E on new hull forms.'' In support of the development 
of that capability, the committee recommends an increase of 
$1.5 million in PE 62236N for upgrades to Navy acoustic 
research and test equipment.

Navy electronics research

    The budget request included $54.8 million in PE 62271N for 
radio frequency systems applied research. The committee notes 
that next-generation Navy radars, communications, and 
electronic warfare systems will all depend on advanced high 
power microelectronics. The Navy's Power and Energy Science and 
Technology Focus Area includes the specific objective of 
developing new materials to increase the efficiency and power 
density of Navy systems. To complement these efforts, the 
committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for research 
on advanced semiconductor radio frequency power technologies.

Advanced technologies for power projection

    The budget request included $60.4 million in PE 63114N for 
advanced technologies for power projection. The committee notes 
that the capability to support detection, tracking, and 
identification of mobile targets, including to support maritime 
interdiction and land attack of high value targets, is a high 
priority based on several fleet and combatant commands 
assessments of current operational capability gaps. The Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency and Office of Naval Research 
science and technology programs are currently supporting these 
science and technology development efforts with planned 
transitions in fiscal year 2012. To accelerate the development 
and reduce the risk of these efforts, the committee recommends 
an additional $3.5 million in PE 63114N for development of 
mobile target tracking and identification technologies.
    The committee notes that the Naval Expeditionary Command 
recommendations to the Office of Naval Research for high 
priority capability gaps to be addressed with science and 
technology investments included ``fires detections and 
engagement systems for incoming direct and indirect fires.'' To 
support efforts to address that gap, the committee recommends 
an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63114N for the development of 
watercraft active protection systems.

Force protection advanced technology

    The budget request included $55.1 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology. This program addresses 
applied research associated with providing force protection 
capability for all naval platforms.
    The budget request included no funding for continuing the 
development of wide band gap semiconductor substrate materials. 
These materials offer capability for higher power and higher 
frequency operation in high temperature environments across a 
broad spectrum of applications. The committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million for the continued development of wide 
band gap semiconductor substrate material.
    The budget request included no funding for any initiative 
to leverage rapidly developing ongoing advances in hydrogen-
powered fuel cell vehicle technology to enable revolutionary 
changes in the Department of the Navy non-tactical vehicle 
fleet. Fuel cells powered by hydrogen could totally change the 
present dependence on petroleum as the logistics fuel and could 
offer the ability to run systems silently and with 
significantly reduced thermal signatures for missions requiring 
low probability of detection. In previous years, the Department 
of the Navy conducted several short-term demonstrations of 
hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. The committee recommends 
an increase of $5.0 million for an expanded demonstration of 
fuel cell vehicles, to include an extended vehicle range 
refueling capability enhancement to include testing that could 
establish the basis for a potential full qualification of a 
hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle for fleet operations.
    The budget request included no funding for development of a 
lithium battery technology that could replace one of the three 
generators normally in operation or reserve aboard all large 
Navy ships. If lithium battery technology could be scaled up to 
a capacity of roughly 2.5 megawatts, such a battery would 
replace one of the three ship service generators normally in 
operation or in reserve aboard all surface combatants. Such a 
battery system could provide a lower cost, higher quality 
source of electrical power that would replace redundant back-up 
power sources dedicated to subsystems throughout the ship. The 
battery would also eliminate the possibility of a ship 
experiencing a catastrophic loss of power (``going dark'') due 
to a cascading failure of generators and an inability to 
restart the main engines following a loss of main power. The 
committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to enable the 
development of such lithium battery technology.
    The budget request included no funding for development of a 
combined mishap reduction system. The committee is aware that 
the private sector has developed web-based information 
management systems that enable managers at all levels in an 
organization to prevent avoidable accidents among their 
personnel. These systems identify high-risk practices, 
procedures, conditions, and attitudes before accidents occur 
and provide paths to mitigate them. The Department of Defense 
has long collected data about the causes of accidents after 
they occur. Using this information alone, however, has proven 
insufficient for reducing accident rates below recent 
historical levels. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million to enable the development of a combined mishap 
reduction system.
    The budget request included no funding for an integrated 
vehicle health monitoring program. Such a program could 
determine the value of adopting commercial automotive standards 
as a baseline for a set of open standards as part of an open 
system vehicle electronics architecture. This program could 
also achieve reductions in the demand for space, weight, power, 
and cooling, as well as reduce the time and cost needed to 
develop new vehicle applications. The committee recommends an 
increase of $3.5 million to enable the development of a 
prototype of an integrated health monitoring system for proof-
of-concept evaluation and demonstration.
    The committee recommends a total authorization of $76.6 
million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology.

High-integrity Global Positioning System

    The budget request included $104.6 million for common 
picture advanced technology in PE 63235N, Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, including $61.2 
million for high-integrity Global Positioning System (GPS). The 
committee recommends no funds for high-integrity GPS.

Ground sensor networks

    The budget request included $100.8 million in PE 63640M for 
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations. The committee 
notes that small arms fire accounts for a large number of 
coalition casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that a number 
of services and defense agencies are pursuing technological 
solutions to meet urgent needs of deployed forces. To support 
these efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million for the development of ground sensor networks that can 
detect and locate hostile fire.

Shipboard system component development

    The budget request included $4.0 million in PE 63513N for 
shipboard system component development, but included no funding 
for high temperature superconductor alternating current (HTS-
AC) synchronous marine propulsion motor development or for 
developing a permanent magnet hybrid propulsion system for the 
DDG-51 Aegis destroyer.
    The Navy has been developing and testing a 36.5 megawatt 
prototype HTS-AC synchronous propulsion motor. Funds are 
required to complete preliminary design and risk reduction of 
the tactical motor in order to initiate detailed design and 
fabrication of the motor in 2010. HTS propulsion motors could 
support current and future Navy needs, either as an upgrade to 
the DDG-1000, or for the CG(X) next-generation cruiser. 
Successful development of the HTS motor will allow much greater 
flexibility in regards to space and weight considerations on 
Navy warships. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 
million to continue development and testing of the HTS-AC 
synchronous marine propulsion motor.
    The budget request included no funding for continued 
development and testing of the permanent magnet motor (PMM). 
Congress has provided funding for several fiscal years to 
mature the PMM technology for main propulsion motor 
applications. The team developing this system has developed a 
plan to design and build a smaller PMM that would support a 
hybrid electric drive system for DDG-51 Aegis destroyers. The 
contractor claims that such a system installed on a DDG-51 
would pay back the investment in approximately 3 years, based 
only on fuel savings of approximately 13,000 barrels of fuel 
per ship per year. The committee recommends an increase of $7.6 
million to design and build a hybrid electric drive system 
based on PMM technology.
    The committee recommends a total authorization of $17.1 
million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component 
development.

Advanced submarine system development

    The budget request included $141.7 million in PE 63561N for 
advanced submarine systems development. The design and 
development efforts in these programs are to evaluate a broad 
range of system and technology alternatives to directly support 
and enhance the mission capability of current submarines and 
future submarine concepts.
    The budget request included no funding to begin studies 
that would lead to developing a replacement for the Ohio class 
strategic missile submarine program which was designed in the 
1970s. The Navy has begun studies under a program called the 
Undersea Launch Missile Study (ULMS). The efforts within ULMS 
will involve exploring new technologies, conceptual design of 
ship configurations, supporting ship systems, consideration of 
strategic payloads, and development of other payloads.
    However, there appears to be insufficient work to maintain 
the skill set among submarine designers until the Navy would 
otherwise start designing a replacement for the Ohio class. A 
previous report by the RAND Corporation evaluating the 
submarine design industrial base concluded that it would be 
less expensive to sustain some number of workers in excess of 
those needed to meet the residual design demands during such a 
gap. One means of achieving this goal would be to begin the 
more extensive design activities earlier than the Navy would 
otherwise start them to support a specific date to start 
building the next class. The committee believes that the Navy 
should continue that effort in fiscal year 2009 and recommends 
an increase of $15.0 million for that purpose.

Facilities improvements

    The budget request included $4.1 million in PE 63725N, but 
included no funding for a program to develop a hydrokinetic 
power generator. This technology uses the phenomenon of vortex-
induced vibrations to extract useful kinetic energy from ocean 
and other water currents. Researchers claim that it is highly 
scalable and could produce energy over a wide range of current 
speeds, starting as low as 1 knot. This energy extraction 
technology is non-obtrusive, environmentally compatible, and 
modular. Such generating systems could be very useful for 
supporting various Navy power needs, including coastal naval 
bases, instrumentation stations, battery recharging, off-shore 
stations, and ships not under way.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to 
support development and testing of this power generation 
approach.

Optical interconnect

    The budget request included $2.8 million in PE 63739N for 
Navy logistics productivity initiatives, but included no 
funding to develop low cost, high quality fiber optic 
interconnect technology for military aerospace application. The 
Department of Defense continues to demand increasing data 
processing, communication, and system control capabilities. The 
next-generation data and communication management systems 
needed for weapons systems will depend upon tightly integrated 
optical fiber solutions, also known as optical interconnect. 
This solution optimizes space utilization while achieving high 
bandwidth, decreased weight, immunity to electromagnetic 
interference, resistance to corrosion, and improved safety and 
security. The Navy has requirements for next-generation optical 
interconnect technology for several aircraft platform systems, 
and anticipates that this technology could be applied to Navy 
vessels as well. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million to develop this important technology.

Land attack technology

    The budget request included $40.0 million in PE 63795N for 
land attack technology, including $38.8 million for the naval 
surface fire support development activity. Most of the funding 
within this activity would have been applied to development of 
the extended range guided munition (ERGM).
    Based on continuing development problems, and capped by 
recent test failures, the Navy decided to terminate the ERGM 
program after submitting the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
    The committee strongly supports making improvements in 
naval surface fire support capability. However, the Navy cannot 
usefully spend all of the funds requested in this program until 
it decides on a path forward.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 
million in land attack technology. The remaining funds should 
be sufficient to support Navy efforts to mature other 
technologies and develop a new plan for meeting surface fire 
support requirements.

Directed energy

    The budget request included $108.6 million PE 62114N and PE 
63114N for directed energy and continued development of an 
electromagnetic rail gun. No funding was requested in PE 
63925N, directed energy and electric weapons systems. Neither 
was there any funding included for a laser weapons system 
(LAWS), which is a top research and development priority on the 
Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priorities list, or for the 
Guillotine program. LAWS is under development as a rapid 
prototype to serve as an adjunct laser weapon for the Navy's 
Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) to counter rockets, artillery, 
mortar, and unmanned aerial vehicles for ship and expeditionary 
base defense. Additional funding would accelerate development 
by 2 years. Guillotine would provide commanders with a non-
lethal capability to disrupt threats and terrorist operations.
    The committee agrees with the Navy's objectives, outlined 
in Joint Vision 2020, to develop directed energy weapons that 
provide unique capability against emerging asymmetric threats. 
The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million in PE 
63925N in support of LAWS and Guillotine development and 
related directed energy and laser weapon systems research and 
development, including high power free electron and high 
brightness electron laser technology.

Next-generation cruiser

    The budget request included $172.1 million in PE 64300N and 
$140.4 million in PE 64501N for development efforts in support 
of a next-generation cruiser, CG(X). CG(X) is planned to be the 
replacement for the CG-47 class cruiser, with primary missions 
including air and missile defense. The Navy's long-range 
shipbuilding plan proposes to procure the first ship of the 
CG(X) program in 2011.
    The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) required that the Navy 
include nuclear power in its Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for 
the CG(X) propulsion system.
    Section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) further requires that 
CG(X) be nuclear powered, unless the Secretary of Defense 
submits a notification that inclusion of an integrated nuclear 
power system is not in the national interest. The statement of 
managers accompanying that act directed the Secretary of the 
Navy to submit a report with the budget request for fiscal year 
2009 providing information regarding CG(X) design, cost, 
schedule, industrial base considerations, and risk assessment; 
that would reflect the results of the CG(X) AoA and provide 
evidence that the Navy is on schedule for procuring the first 
ship of the class in 2011.
    The Secretary of the Navy has delayed submission of the 
CG(X) report because the CG(X) AoA, which was scheduled to be 
complete by third quarter fiscal year 2007, remains under 
review by the Navy. Fundamental considerations regarding the 
cruiser's requirements, characteristics, technology readiness 
levels, and affordability continue to be studied, making it 
likely that milestone A, which was targeted for September 2007, 
will slip into 2009. By all measures, there is no reasonable 
path for the next-generation cruiser to meet the current 
schedule for milestone B and award of a ship construction 
contract in 2011.
    Pending completion of the AoA, determination of radar 
requirements, ship characteristics, propulsion system, and an 
executable program schedule, and in view of the delay to 
program major milestones, the activities planned for fiscal 
years 2008 and 2009 cannot be executed per the schedule 
reflected in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. Therefore, 
the committee recommends a decrease of $87.2 million in PE 
64300N and a decrease of $33.6 million in PE 64501N. These 
recommended decreases would maintain the cruiser development 
activities at the same level as was funded in fiscal year 2008.

Improved towed array handler

    The budget request included $143.5 million in PE 64503N for 
SSN-688 and Trident submarine modernization, but included no 
funding for developing or testing improved handling gear for 
submarine towed arrays. One continuing problem area involves 
the mechanisms for deployment of the towed array from the 
submarine's hull. The current system attempts to ``push'' the 
flexible array out of the submarine using multiple rollers 
which often results in damage to array elements and deployment 
failure. A new system that ``pulls'' the array out could reduce 
the number of rollers which are the source of array damage and 
allow for other improvements and increased reliability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.1 million to 
complete further development of the new handling system and 
testing of a prototype to demonstrate improved thin-line towed 
array system reliability from better array handlers.

Submarine electronic chart updates

    The budget request included $143.5 million in PE 64558N, 
but included no funding for a program to update electronic 
charts for submarines.
    Navy instructions mandate the use of electronic chart 
display products across the Navy. This requirement was 
conceived in stand-alone, display workstation applications, 
which no longer represent the state-of-the-practice of net-
ready, web-service environments. The committee is aware that 
the Navy conducted a Small Business Innovative Research effort 
that focused on the demonstration of net-ready, web-service 
updates of electronic charts for submarines. Funding is needed 
to:
          (1) enhance the current voyage management system/
        enhanced control display unit capabilities on the 
        attack submarines;
          (2) establish an interim chart update repository 
        ashore to support the Navy until formal transition to 
        National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency production;
          (3) develop and evaluate potential bandwidth 
        reduction options for vector data products, and 
        establish related certification requirements and 
        procedures;
          (4) demonstrate navigation task reduction through 
        automated chart updates by data consumers; and
          (5) complete operational testing of developed 
        services and web clients for release to the fleet.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million to 
support these activities.

Next-generation Phalanx

    The budget request included $36.2 million in PE 64756N for 
ship self-defense (hard kill), but included no funding for 
next-generation Phalanx. The Phalanx weapon system is the 
Navy's principal close-in weapon system for ship self-defense, 
and has proven to be extremely adaptive for performance against 
emerging air and surface target sets. The continually evolving 
nature of the threat, unique challenges posed by operations in 
the littorals, increased emphasis on single ship probability of 
raid annihilation, and fact of life technology obsolescence 
require continued development effort to sustain the superior 
performance of this critical ship self-defense system. The 
committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million in PE 64756N 
for the continued development of the next-generation Phalanx.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

    The budget request included $57.6 million for ship self-
defense soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including 
$3.0 million for various development activities related to the 
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system.
    The Navy has identified a series of development activities 
associated with the NULKA system that are required to 
understand and deal with emerging threats:
          (1) an improved payload that would provide radio 
        frequency coverage of more than one band of the 
        spectrum to deal with anti-ship missiles;
          (2) better countermeasures techniques for advanced 
        anti-ship cruise missiles with advanced seekers;
          (3) an improved guidance and propulsion system to 
        allow more precise positioning of the decoy during 
        operations;
          (4) increased duty cycle; and
          (5) additional systems engineering and software 
        support.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for 
the NULKA development program to continue these efforts.

Combat wound tissue transplantation technologies

    The budget request included $7.8 million in PE 64771N for 
medical development. The committee notes the continuing and 
growing need for combat casualty care technologies including 
tissue and organ replacement and transplantation. The committee 
recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 64771N for 
composite tissue transplantation research.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter competitive propulsion system

    The budget request included $1,532.7 million in PE 64800N 
and $1,524.0 million in PE 64800F for the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter (JSF) program. In section 213 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
Congress explicitly directed the Department of Defense to (1) 
develop a competitive propulsion system for the JSF aircraft; 
and (2) continue competition for the propulsion system 
throughout the production phase of the JSF program.
    The committee is disappointed that the administration chose 
to ignore the law by failing to fund the competitive propulsion 
system. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of 
$215.0 million in PE 64800N and $215.0 million in PE 64800F for 
development of the F-35 JSF competitive propulsion system.

Navy test and evaluation support

    The budget request included $356.3 million in PE 65864N for 
test and evaluation support. The committee commends the Navy 
for the growth in this line, and urges the Navy to continue to 
sustain and modernize test capabilities to support current and 
emerging service and joint requirements. However, the committee 
is concerned that test and evaluation accounts are often used 
to deposit discretionary funds that are then transferred for 
use for other purposes.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million in PE 
65864N for the activities described in budget presentations as 
``PBD P19--COTF Balancing.'' The committee was later informed 
that the Office of the Secretary of Defense transferred the 
funds to the Navy without sufficient explanation, so the amount 
was placed into a test and evaluation account for the purposes 
of the budget request until clarification was received. The 
committee has not received any clarification for the purpose of 
the funds and feels that this is insufficient justification for 
the request.

Advanced LINAC facility

    The budget request included $80.1 million in PE 11221N, 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), but 
included no funding for the Crane linear accelerator facility 
(LINAC). The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 
for the LINAC to simulate the high radiation environment in 
space. The committee directs the Navy to develop and use these 
additional funds in conjunction with the Joint Radiation 
Hardened Electronics Oversight Council.

Navy support of the reliable replacement warhead

    The budget request included $23.3 million in PE 11221N 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN) for 
support to the reliable replacement warhead (RRW). The 
committee recommends no funds for Navy support to phase 3 RRW 
activities and a reduction of $23.3 million. This effort 
anticipated that the National Nuclear Security Administration 
would be moving to the phase 3 of the RRW study process in 
2009. No funds were provided for RRW phase 2A in fiscal year 
2008, as a result funding for phase 3 is premature.

Warfighter enhanced decision making

    The budget request included $26.7 million in PE 24163N for 
fleet communications, but included no funding for a warfighter 
enhanced decision making and mobile networking applications 
initiative (WEDM).
    Two years ago, Congress directed the Navy to establish a 
laboratory to address information technology (IT) challenges 
facing local and regional commands. The laboratory's focus on 
emerging technologies offers a unique opportunity to develop 
and test a joint operational proof-of-concept WEDM. This 
initiative would be aimed at fielding leading edge applications 
that could shorten the operational ``kill chain'' and enhance 
information flow to the warfighter. WEDM would also provide an 
opportunity for the academic community to work with the 
Department of Defense to develop and rapidly deploy training 
curricula for emerging technologies.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to 
establish the WEDM pilot program to provide modeling and 
simulation, lab testing, live testing, and training on 
equipment prior to shore site acquisition to ensure that the 
C4I systems programmed for installation on Navy ships are 
compatible with shore facilities and are of appropriate 
capacity to support fleet deployments worldwide.

Aviation improvements

    The budget request included $122.9 million in PE 25633N for 
aviation improvements, but no funds to develop next-generation 
automated test systems (ATS) instrumentation for aircraft 
avionics or to develop rapid repair structural adhesives for 
aircraft applications.
    Current ATS are large and numerous. The Navy finds it 
difficult to keep the commercial hardware used in test 
equipment modernized on a schedule similar to advanced and 
evolving aircraft avionics. The Navy specifically, and the 
Department of Defense broadly, require technology that is 
easily upgradeable and flexible to conduct complex tests on a 
variety of fielded systems. Therefore, the committee recommends 
an increase of $3.0 million to develop new technology for ATS 
to reduce the size and increase the versatility of test 
equipment through software upgrades.
    The Navy has been pursuing efforts to develop structural 
adhesives that cure in the presence of ultraviolet light, 
reducing required maintenance equipment while retaining 
required strength. This would permit rapid repair of 
structures, such as damaged military aircraft and radomes. 
Present technology only supports either room temperature curing 
for several days or high pressure and temperature cycles in 
autoclaves. Developing adhesives that cure rapidly, store at 
room temperature, last on the shelf for a year, and are 
environmentally safe would have great benefits to Navy 
logistics. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$1.0 million to develop structural adhesives that exhibit these 
properties.
    The committee recommends a total authorization of $126.9 
million in PE 25633N for aviation improvements.

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System

    The budget request included $480.1 million in PE 35205N for 
the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System 
(BAMS UAS). The BAMS UAS program development contract, which 
the Navy had expected to award in October 2007, was delayed 
until late April 2008. As a result, development activities 
originally planned for fiscal year 2008 will inevitably move to 
fiscal year 2009. For example, an updated BAMS UAS program 
schedule indicates that system engineering activities such as 
the system functional review have slipped to fiscal year 2009.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $48.2 
million in PE 35205N for BAMS UAS to reflect this delay.

Digital manufacturing technologies

    The budget request included $56.7 million in PE 78011N for 
Navy manufacturing technology programs. The committee notes 
that the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the 
Defense Science Board have both identified significant 
shortfalls in manufacturing research and development funding in 
the Department of Defense. To help address these shortfalls and 
strengthen the defense industrial base, the committee 
recommends an increase of $1.7 million in PE 78011N for the 
development of advanced direct digital manufacturing 
technologies to support the rapid prototyping of defense 
materiel.

National Shipbuilding Research Program--Advanced Shipbuilding 
        Enterprise

    The budget request included no funding in PE 78730N for 
maritime technology. The National Shipbuilding Research 
Program--Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP-ASE) is a 
collaborative effort between the Navy and industry which has 
yielded significant productivity improvements for Navy ship 
construction and repair. Under this program the Navy provides 
funding that is matched and exceeded by industry investment. 
Using this approach, the Navy has achieved a high return on 
investment by providing near-term savings and avoiding 
significant future costs. The committee believes that 
continuation of the NSRP-ASE effort is a vital element of the 
overarching objective of improving the affordability of naval 
warship construction and maintaining a healthy, innovative 
shipbuilding industrial base.
    The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 
78730N for the NSRP-ASE.

                               Air Force



Air Force basic research programs

    The budget request included $125.9 million in PE 61103F for 
university research initiatives. The committee commends the Air 
Force for increasing its investments in basic research in the 
fiscal year 2009 budget request. This is consistent with the 
National Research Council's 2005 report entitled ``Assessment 
of Department of Defense Basic Research,'' which recommended 
that ``the Department of Defense should redress the imbalance 
between its current basic research allocation, which has 
declined critically over the past decade, and its need to 
better support the expanded areas of technology, the need for 
increased unfettered basic research, and the support of new 
researchers.''
    Consistent with the need to fund more basic research 
efforts in areas of technological interest to the Air Force, 
the committee recommends increases in PE 61103F of: $2.0 
million for research on advanced hypersonic technology designs; 
$2.0 million for information security research; $1.6 million 
for research on reducing military decision making cycle times; 
and $2.5 million for research on diamond substrates for 
microelectronics.

Air Force materials research

    The budget request included $117.1 million in PE 62102F for 
applied research on materials. The committee notes that the 
National Research Council's 2005 report on ``High Performance 
Structural Fibers for Advanced Polymer Matrix Composites'' 
highlighted the need for the Department of Defense to reduce 
costs and improve its understanding of the manufacture and 
properties of advanced carbon fibers. Consistent with those 
recommendations, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 
million in PE 62102F for research on advanced carbon fiber 
materials for Air Force applications. The committee notes that 
the Naval Studies Board's 2007 report on ``Conventional Prompt 
Global Strike (CPGS) Capability'' noted that ``the boost glide 
and high-speed cruise missile concepts as CPGS options require 
advanced technologies, especially in the areas of thermal 
protection and management . . .'' The committee recommends an 
increase of $2.5 million for the development of thermal 
protection systems for global strike hypersonic vehicles.
    The Director of Defense Research and Engineering's 2007 
Strategic Plan identified advanced materials as an enabling 
technology for a number of desired military capabilities, 
including protection against improvised explosive devices and 
air dominance. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million in PE 62102F for development of fire and blast 
resistant materials for force protection missions.
    Finally, the committee notes that the Air Force Research 
Laboratory strategy has a strategic goal to ``accurately 
diagnose the current state and predict the future state of 
aerospace systems'' by 2015. To support that effort, the 
committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for 
development of health monitoring sensors of aerospace 
components.
    The budget request included $41.9 million in PE 63112F for 
advanced materials technology development for weapons systems. 
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to develop 
and transition metals and process technologies for fielded and 
future Air Force systems.

Optical components for air vehicles

    The budget request included $122.9 million in PE 62201F for 
applied research on aerospace vehicle technologies. The 
committee notes that the National Research Council's 2006 study 
on ``Future Air Force Needs for Survivability'' noted the need 
to reduce electronic emission signatures on aircraft. The 
committee recommends an additional $1.5 million in PE 62201F 
for research on optical components to replace electrical 
components for use in onboard aircraft communications systems.

Air Force training technology

    The budget request included $82.1 million in PE 62202F for 
applied research on human effectiveness. The committee notes 
that in a 2007 memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Director of Defense Research and Engineering highlighted the 
need to significantly increase investments in research on 
adaptive, interactive full immersion training. To enhance Air 
Force and joint training capabilities, the committee recommends 
increases in PE 62202F of $2.0 million for advanced satellite 
operator training systems development and $2.5 million for 
development of immersive tools for enhancing theater air-to-
ground command and control coordination modeling and 
simulation.

Air Force aerospace propulsion technology

    The budget request included $218.0 million in PE 62203F for 
applied research on aerospace propulsion. The 2006 National 
Research Council report entitled ``A Review of United States 
Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion 
Needs'' concluded that Air Force investments in propulsion 
science and technology need ``. . . to be increased if 
technical gaps are to be filled.'' The report focused on a 
variety of space, tactical air, and engine technology gaps that 
need to be addressed.
    To enhance Air Force propulsion technology efforts, the 
committee recommends an increase in 62203F of $2.0 million for 
development of high temperature, corrosion resistant bearings 
for advanced propulsion systems.
    The committee continues to support Department of Defense 
efforts to develop technologies to support time-critical strike 
missions. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 
in PE 62203F for robust scramjet research activities leading to 
flight tests and demonstration of an alternate engine to 
support the Air Force X-51 testbed program.

Aerospace sensor technologies

    The budget request included $109.0 million in PE 62204F for 
applied research on aerospace sensors. The committee notes that 
the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) science and technology 
(S&T) strategy highlights the need for development of ``novel 
data mining and advanced relevance assessment technologies'' to 
support establishment of ``universal situational awareness.'' 
To help address this need, the committee recommends an increase 
of $1.5 million for research on enhancing information quality 
to support persistent surveillance missions.
    The AFRL S&T strategy has set a strategic goal of 
demonstrating ``layered and flexible sensing architecture that 
respond to the Commander's intent'' by identifying and 
precisely locating high value difficult targets by 2015. To 
support the development of this architecture, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62204F for 
development of wideband system components to support electronic 
intelligence systems.

Air Force seismic research

    The budget request included $117.5 million in PE 62601F 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force for 
space technologies including $6.8 for seismic technologies to 
support national requirements for monitoring nuclear 
explosions. The committee recommends an increase of $13.0 
million to improve operational seismic capability.

Cyber attack mitigation technologies

    The budget request included $109.5 million in PE 62702F for 
applied research on command, control, and communications 
technologies. The September 2007 Defense Science Board study 
entitled ``Mission Impact of Foreign Influence on DOD 
Software'' highlighted the need for ``programs to advance the 
state-of-the-art in vulnerability detection and mitigation in 
software and hardware.'' In support of this finding, the 
committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for the 
development of systems to detect and defeat malicious software 
on military networks and information systems.

Reconfigurable securing computing

    The budget request included $56.9 million in PE 63203F for 
development of advanced aerospace sensors. The Air Force and 
Department of Defense have set cybersecurity as a high 
technology priority. To support these efforts at the tactical 
level and reduce the costs for the development of security 
systems, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 
to develop reconfigurable secure computing technologies for 
advanced sensor systems.

Propulsion technologies

    The budget request included $170.9 million in PE 63216F for 
aerospace and propulsion and power technology development. The 
Defense Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy 
recommended investing ``in energy efficient and alternative 
energy technologies to a level commensurate with their 
operational and financial value.'' The committee believes that 
the development of alternative sources of fuel for Air Force 
missions could result in huge cost savings for the Department 
of Defense, and therefore recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 63216F for research on assured aerospace fuels to 
assess alternative fuels from sources such as coal, biomass, 
and shale, while minimizing environmental impact.
    The committee continues to support development of 
hypersonic technologies to enable high speed, precision strike 
capabilities. The committee recommends an additional $6.0 
million in PE 63216F for development of supersonic and 
hypersonic cruise missile engine technologies, as part of the 
Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine (VAATE) High Speed 
Turbine Engine Demonstrator (HiSTED) program.

Thin film amorphous solar arrays

    The budget request included $81.0 million in PE 63401F for 
advanced spacecraft technology. The committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million for thin film amorphous solar arrays 
for space systems. Fiscal year 2009 will be the last year of 
this successful research and development program of advanced 
solar arrays for space systems using thin film amorphous 
substrate. These solar arrays are 10 times cheaper, three to 
five times lighter, and significantly more efficient than 
current solar arrays. After the successful demonstration flight 
on the Tac-Sat2 satellite, the committee believes that the Air 
Force should work with industry to explore future opportunities 
to transition these solar arrays to future Tac-Sat satellites 
or other satellite programs of record. Fiscal year 2009 funds 
would be used to finish the analysis of the experimental and 
demonstration data and complete the project.

Integrated targeting devices

    The budget request included $11.8 million in PE 63601F for 
development of conventional weapons technology. The Air Force 
Research Laboratory science and technology strategy states that 
``an important aspect of universal situational awareness is the 
advancement of sensor technologies.'' In order to support the 
development of enhanced sensor technologies to support 
improving precision strike capabilities, the committee 
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for lightweight, 
targeting device development to integrate multiple sensor 
types.

Optical interconnect for battlefield communications

    The budget request included $30.1 million in PE 63789F for 
advanced development of command, control, communications, and 
intelligence technologies. The Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering's 2007 strategic plan highlights networks and 
communications, including technologies to address airborne 
networks, as an enabling technology that should receive the 
highest level of corporate attention and coordination. To 
support these efforts the committee recommends an additional 
$2.0 million for development of optical interconnects to 
support data communications onboard unmanned aircraft systems 
and satellites.

High energy laser weapon systems

    The budget request included $4.0 million in PE 63924F for 
the high energy laser advanced technology program managed by 
the high energy laser joint technology office. The committee 
notes that the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed 
Energy Weapons recommended that ``the Director of Defense 
Research and Engineering should give high priority to science 
and technology activities addressing high power solid state 
laser development and accompanying beam quality and beam 
control development.'' To support this effort, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63924F for 
optimization of solid state laser technologies and acceleration 
of the transition of operational systems to warfighters.

Global Positioning System III operational control segment

    The budget request included $734.7 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) for the 
Global Positioning System III (GPS III) in three separate 
budget lines: $420.3 million for the GPS III space segment; 
$3.0 million for the GPS III operational control segment; and 
$304.4 million for the backwards compatibility for the 
operational control segment. Previously all three GPS 
activities were in a single GPS III program element. While the 
committee recognizes some value in separating the ground and 
space segments, the committee believes that separating the 
ground segment into two different budget lines needlessly 
removes program management flexibility.
    The committee recommends combining RDTEAF line 37 with line 
36 into a single budget line and program element, PE 63423F, 
for the GPS III operational control segment.
    If the continued separation of the space and operational 
control segments introduces additional cost or management 
difficulty into the GPS III program, the committee would 
support recombining both segments into a single program 
element.

Space situational awareness

    The budget request included $76.8 million in PE 63438F for 
space control technology. The committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million to utilize Missile Defense Agency X-band and 
UHF-band sensors for additional space object tracking to 
improve space situational awareness.

Transformational Communications satellite

    The budget request included $843.0 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) for the 
Transformational Communications satellite (TSAT). This amount 
is $384.8 million less than was projected for TSAT just last 
year. The committee recommends an increase of $350.0 million 
for TSAT.
    The Air Force and the Department of Defense (DOD) reduced 
the TSAT program by $3.6 billion over the future-years defense 
program (FYDP), delaying the first launch of TSAT until fiscal 
year 2018 or beyond, a delay of 4 years. The committee is very 
disappointed in the decision to delay TSAT. For the last 
several years the Air Force and the DOD executive agent for 
space have asserted that TSAT is one of its highest priorities 
for the Department and the core of the protected satellite 
communications architecture.
    TSAT would provide protected, high data rate, wideband 
communications with many times the capability of the Advanced 
Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) and the Wideband Global System 
(WGS) that it will replace. The significantly enhanced 
capabilities provided by TSAT are required to support a broad 
range of modernization programs, including the Army Future 
Combat System and the many existing and future unmanned aerial 
vehicle (UAV) programs. In addition, TSAT will provide a 
networking capability based on Internet protocols that will 
substantially increase the number of users and the way 
information is shared.
    The TSAT program started with an overly aggressive 
schedule, significant technical risks, and significant cost 
uncertainty, but with substantial management attention the 
technical and other risks are being addressed. The key 
technologies for TSAT are all at a technical readiness level 6 
and the independent program assessment found that TSAT is ready 
to move to the preliminary design phase.
    Nevertheless, the Department has initiated a review to 
revalidate the TSAT program requirements as part of a military 
satellite communications investment strategy study. The 
committee is concerned that some of the options being discussed 
as part of the study will, if adopted, further delay delivery 
of the TSAT capabilities to the broad user community, waste 
money in the long run, and generate a significant 
communications gap in the future. Many of the options under 
consideration will so reduce the capability of TSAT that the 
committee questions why such a substantially downgraded TSAT is 
worth the effort, time, and expense. TSAT as originally 
envisioned would dramatically increase data throughput and, 
through the introduction of an Internet protocol approach, 
fundamentally change the way in which satellite communications 
are utilized.
    The committee recognizes the critical need for the full 
scope TSAT, but will not support TSAT under the circumstances 
as currently presented to the committee by the Air Force and 
DOD. At this juncture the committee would support funding for 
TSAT only if the Air Force and DOD return TSAT to a meaningful 
technology and schedule path. This is a difficult decision 
given the superb management of the program by the TSAT program 
office.
    Once again the committee questions the senior level Air 
Force commitment to being a space force.

Operationally Responsive Space

    The budget request included $110.0 million in PE 64857F for 
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). The committee recommends 
an increase of $10.0 million for increased work on approaches 
to standardized bus designs with common interfaces, additional 
satellite launches to support both technology demonstrations 
and operational concepts, and additional launch capabilities 
including a resource study to look at block buys for launch 
vehicles.
    The committee commends the work of the ORS office since it 
was formally established last year, and appreciates the effort 
required to establish a multi-service, multi-agency, 
functioning program office. To support the multi-service, 
multi-agency nature of the office the committee supports the 
concept of rotational directors and deputy directors.
    The committee urges the ORS office to continue to maintain 
a balanced program including launch, bus development, sensor 
development, and developing fully integrated satellites. In 
addition, the launch of the Tac-Sat2 satellite demonstrated 
that many issues remain to be resolved in the development of 
operational concepts for the Transformational Communications 
Satellite (TSAT).

B-2 radar modernization program

    The budget request included $351.4 million in PE64240F for 
the B-2 bomber, including $83.1 million for radar 
modernization. The committee recommends a transfer of $18.5 
million from PE6420F to Aircraft Procurement, Air Force line 24 
to facilitate the management of the radar modernization 
program.

Space-based space surveillance block 10

    The budget request included $210.5 million for space 
situational awareness systems in PE 64425F including $210.5 
million for space-based space surveillance block 10 (SBSS 10). 
SBSS 10 is a spacecraft to improve deep space situational 
awareness by finding, fixing, and tracking space objects that 
is scheduled to launch in early 2009. The committee recommends 
an additional $10.0 million for SBSS 10 to allow for timely 
development of training materials, technical orders, and a 
simulation environment to train Air Force SBSS 10 operators, 
thereby reducing the time between launch and transition to Air 
Force operations.

Space-based Infrared Satellite system

    The budget request included $529.8 million in PE 64441F for 
the Space-based Infrared Satellite system (SBIRS). The 
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for SBIRS 
operations and training.
    The SBIRS program is suffering from the same problem that 
is becoming increasingly apparent in several space systems--a 
disconnect between the ground and space segments. Because of 
the technical, cost, and schedule issues that have surrounded 
the SBIRS space segment, the Air Force has had to divert funds 
slated for ground related activities to the space segment for 
at least the last 3 years. As a result, the ground activities 
associated with SBIRS have been underfunded. The committee 
notes that for both fiscal years 2008 and 2009 funding for the 
ground segment has appeared on the Chief of the Air Force's 
unfunded priorities list.
    Now that the first HEO sensor is on orbit, with excellent 
initial performance, and the second HEO sensor is close behind, 
the lack of ground funding is a growing problem. The unfunded 
requirement in fiscal year 2009 is $71.2 million and includes 
funding for such basic items as the wideband data transmission 
requirements needed for the payload on-orbit test station to 
exploit and utilize the capabilities of the new HEO sensors, 
and crew training. Also included on the unfunded list is 
completing the hardware and software to allow the mission 
control station and the backup station to control, track, task, 
and process the data from both the legacy and the SBIRS 
systems. Moreover, on the current schedule the backup station 
will be certified for full operations before the main mission 
station.
    The committee also notes that the Air Force has now decided 
not to include the Space and Atmospheric Burst Reporting System 
(SABRS), part of the U.S. nuclear detonation system, as part of 
the payload on the SBIRS-GEO 3 satellite. The committee directs 
the Air Force to either reinstate the SABRS on the SBIRS-GEO 3 
satellite or find an equally capable alternative host and 
report its decision to the congressional defense committee no 
later than August 30, 2008.

Third Generation Infrared Surveillance satellite system

    The budget request included $149.1 million in PE 64443F for 
the Third Generation Infrared Surveillance (3GIRS) satellite 
system. The committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million.
    3GIRS is a technology development program to develop the 
next generation of infrared early warning satellite. The 
committee supports further development and on orbit testing of 
new technologies to support the follow-on to the Space Based 
Infrared Satellite system (SBIRS). The last SBIRS GEO satellite 
will probably launch in fiscal year 2016 depending on the final 
decision as to the full size of the SBIRS GEO constellation. In 
its budget justification material for 3GIRS, the Air Force 
plans to freeze the technology for the follow-on to SBIRS and 
make a decision to proceed to build an operational satellite at 
the end of fiscal 2010 even though the first launch of the 
follow-on would not be until 2019. The committee is concerned 
that the Air Force plan would prematurely lock in a technology 
without completing needed sensor development and without fully 
understanding the performance of the two approaches currently 
funded. The committee notes that there is a third unfunded 
option as well. As a result, the committee urges the Air Force 
to complete development of the focal plane arrays and to 
consider short-term on orbit demonstrations of both approaches. 
The committee encourages utilizing the Operationally Response 
Space Office to explore opportunities to conduct on orbit 
experiments.

F135 engine

    The budget request included $1,524.0 million in PE 64800F 
for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Over the past 
2 years, Congress has added $820.0 million to continue funding 
of the F136 engine, a competitive propulsion source, to ensure 
there is fair and full competition for the propulsion system of 
the JSF.
    The Department of Defense froze the technology baseline of 
the F135 engine several years ago when the JSF and the engine 
began system development and demonstration (SDD). To ensure 
that both engines incorporate the best configuration and most 
recent technology available, the Department should invest in 
and direct a program for the F135 and F136 engine programs that 
would drive technology insertion and provide potential 
customers with the best performing, most efficient engines 
possible. For example, the committee believes that the 
potential application of new composite materials in the F135 
engine program could result in life cycle cost savings. Because 
no funds were set aside for the F136 engine in the 
administration's budget request, elsewhere in this report the 
committee has recommended an increase of $430.0 million for the 
development of the F-136 engine.
    In order to maintain a level playing field, the committee 
recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 64800F for F135 
engine technology development.

Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Aircraft

    The budget request included $305.1 million in PE 65277F for 
development of the Combat Search and Rescue Replacement 
Aircraft (CSAR-X) and $15.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, 
Air Force (APAF) for advanced procurement for CSAR-X. The Air 
Force anticipated awarding the development contract for the 
CSAR-X in the spring of 2008, but the award has been delayed 
until the first quarter of fiscal year 2009 due to successful 
protests by losing offerors, development of additional data 
about the program, as well as the offerors' schedules.
    On April 11, 2008, the Air Force released Amendment 6 to 
the Request for Proposal for the CSAR-X. Amendment 6 modifies 
the development funding required in fiscal year 2009, lowering 
the amount, according to the Air Force, to $265.1 million. 
These delays and the new program profile associated with 
Amendment 6 also remove the need for programming any advance 
procurement funds in fiscal year 2009.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 
million in PE 65277F for CSAR-X and a reduction of $15.0 
million in APAF for CSAR-X advance procurement.

High speed test track

    The budget request included $61.8 million in PE 64759F for 
major test and evaluation investments. The committee continues 
to be concerned about the Air Force's downsizing of its test 
and evaluation infrastructure and workforce. The committee 
believes that a shortsighted reduction in Air Force testing 
capabilities will inevitably increase technical risk, life 
cycle costs, and potentially reduce operational performance of 
future Air Force acquisition programs. The committee recommends 
an increase of $4.0 million to support development of high 
speed test track technology for use on testing of critical 
missile, propulsion, and sensor subsystems.

B-52 bomber

    The budget request included $38.7 million in PE 11113F for 
B-52 squadrons, including $35.2 million for combat network 
communications technology (CONECT). The committee recommends an 
additional $9.5 million for CONECT. The Air Force failed to 
include adequate funding in the budget request to meet the 
requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to maintain 76 B-52 
bombers in a common configuration and included this funding on 
the Air Force unfunded priorities list.

Air Operations Centers

    The budget request included $118.8 million in PE 27410F for 
Air Operations Centers, including $40.4 million for integration 
and development of Air Operation Centers (AOCs), increment 
10.2. The Air Force has not finished fielding increment 10.1 of 
the AOCs, yet has launched into development of increment 10.2. 
Increment 10.2 will rely, in part, on the Defense Information 
Systems Agency's Net-enabled Command and Control (NECC). 
However, both the Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering's technology readiness assessment and the Director 
of Operational Test and Evaluation's ongoing oversight of the 
NECC program have raised concerns regarding technical risk, 
aggressive and optimistic scheduling, and unclear testing and 
deployment strategies.
    Until technical risk, testing, and program schedule issues 
are addressed in a coordinated and joint fashion for both NECC 
and AOCs, the committee believes that continuing development of 
AOCs, increment 10.2 would be premature. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a reduction of $40.4 million in PE 27410F 
for the development of AOCs, increment 10.2.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system research and development

    The budget request included $97.6 million in PE 27581F for 
research and development projects for the E-8 joint 
surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS).
    The E-10 aircraft was supposed to be a test bed for the 
multi-platform radar technology insertion program (MP-RTIP). 
The Air Force intends to field this MP-RTIP sensor suite on a 
number of air vehicles, including the Global Hawk unmanned 
aerial vehicle (UAV).
    Last year, the Air Force decided to cancel the E-10 
program. However, the Air Force realized that canceling testing 
and development of the large MP-RTIP would leave a void in its 
capability to defend the U.S. homeland as well as U.S. and 
coalition forces against cruise missile attacks. The JSTARS (E-
8) was the original platform designated for MP-RTIP. That makes 
the current JSTAR aircraft a prime candidate as the Air Force 
investigates a path forward. The Air Force could transfer the 
radar back to JSTARS with minimal risk. Installation of MP-RTIP 
could provide nearly the same capability as the E-10 while 
saving scarce defense dollars.
    The committee believes that the Air Force should pursue 
another path, whether that would be the E-8 JSTARS or some 
other platform, and field the better capability than can be 
achieved with the Global Hawk. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $98.0 million in PE 27581F for 
maturing the MP-RTIP sensor suite.

Weather service research and development

    The budget request included $47.3 million in PE 35111F for 
research and development projects for the Air Force weather 
weapon system (AFWWS), but included no funding to develop 
software toolkits for operations risk management (STORM) 
upgrades for the system.
    AFWWS and its warfighter application are charged with 
providing regional and tactical weather observations and 
forecasts to Command, Control, Communications, Computers, 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems 
used by commanders, planners, and operators throughout the 
world. The Air Force needs to upgrade AFWWS to provide 
commanders and mission planners with a better appreciation of 
the uncertainty of weather forecasts and observations. Such an 
upgrade should enable them to better determine the risk of 
ongoing and planned operations. The AFWWS is currently capable 
of calculating the needed uncertainty but is unable to provide 
computer-to-computer transfer of such information.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 
million to upgrade the AFWWS and integrate all vital 
information (terrain, weather, risk assessment) into one visual 
display.

C-17 research, development, test, and evaluation

    The budget request included $236.0 million in PE 41130F for 
C-17 research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), 
including $150.8 million for performance improvement 
development and testing. The funding for performance 
improvement development and testing represents a 50 percent 
increase over the fiscal year 2008 amount.
    The committee believes that the Air Force should continue 
to seek improvements in existing weapons systems, and therefore 
is not recommending elimination of all funding. However, given 
the superb performance and operation of the C-17 fleet over the 
past several years, the committee sees no justification for 
increased RDT&E funding for C-17s at this time.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $48.0 
million in PE 41130F for C-17 performance improvement 
development and testing.

Expeditionary Combat Support System

    The budget request included $189.7 million in PE 78610F for 
the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS). The committee 
is encouraged by the recent progress ECSS has made towards 
achieving Milestone B certification in the fall of this year. 
Also encouraging is the Air Force strategy briefed to the 
committee for better coordination and integration of ECSS with 
another information technology initiative, the Defense 
Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS). However, 
significant concerns remain. Current plans show that over the 
next 3 years the Air Force has underfunded the ECSS by over 
$500.0 million. Additionally, the committee has learned that 
the program office is significantly understaffed. While the 
committee has been given assurances that the funding concerns 
will be reconciled in future years, the current schedule of 
concurrently developing and fielding Release 1 and Release 2 
appears high risk. Until the Air Force fully funds the ECCS and 
provides sufficient manning, the current schedule appears 
overly optimistic. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $50.0 million in PE 78610F for ECSS, Release 2.

Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System

    The budget request included $27.3 million in PE 91538F for 
the research, development, test, and evaluation activities 
related to the Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management 
System (DEAMS). The committee has historically been supportive 
of the Department of Defense's business systems modernization 
efforts, but is concerned by the Air Force's functionally 
``stovepiped'' approach to its Enterprise Resource Planning 
(ERP) financial systems. Current Air Force strategy designates 
DEAMS as the Air Force financial system of record for working 
capital fund accounting, requiring the Expeditionary Combat 
Support System (ECSS) financial transaction to be provided to 
DEAMS. Current strategy increases the number of interfaces 
between DEAMS and ECSS, increases long-term costs, and greatly 
complicates the Air Force movement to a fully integrated 
information technology environment.
    The committee notes that the Air Force has recognized the 
weaknesses of the current ``stovepiped'' strategy and, under a 
proposed new strategy, plans to migrate working capital fund 
financials to ECSS. Supported by the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense's Business Transformation Agency, this proposal will 
provide the foundation for the Air Force's evolution to a 
single enterprise resource program. Under the new strategy, the 
committee believes that the development funding requested for 
DEAMS is excess to need.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 
million for DEAMS. The committee directs that the Air Force 
preserve funding for testing activities related to DEAMS when 
allocating the reduction.

                              Defense-wide



Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

    The budget request included $2.8 million in PE 61114D8Z for 
the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research (DEPSCoR). The committee notes that this program was 
funded at $16.9 million in fiscal year 2008 and, according to 
military service program managers, has funded meritorious basic 
research programs that have contributed to defense 
capabilities. The program is currently undergoing a 
congressionally directed independent assessment that will serve 
to improve the management and execution of the program. The 
committee recommends an additional $8.0 million for the DEPSCoR 
program.

In-vitro models for biodefense vaccines

    The budget request included $53.2 million in PE 61384BP for 
chemical and biological defense basic research, but no funds 
for development of lung models to improve vaccines. The 
committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 61384BP 
for development of an in-vitro lung model to support biodefense 
vaccines against aerosolized pathogens. The committee notes 
that there is insufficient understanding of the interaction 
between human lung immune cells and aerosolized biological 
agents. In order to design effective vaccines against such 
threats, it would be important to improve this understanding.

Superstructural particle evaluation

    The budget request included $53.2 million in PE 61384BP for 
chemical and biological defense basic research. This basic 
research improves the understanding of the scientific processes 
for protection against chemical and biological agents. The 
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 61384BP 
to continue efforts in superstructural particle evaluation and 
characterization with targeted reaction analysis. This program 
shows potential as an enabling technology for other efforts in 
the chemical and biological defense area.

Next-generation over-the-horizon radar

    The budget request included $31.3 million for the Lincoln 
Laboratory Research Program in PE 62234D8Z, but no funds for 
next-generation over-the-horizon radar development (OTHR). The 
budget request did include $1.0 million in PE 63648D8Z to begin 
a Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) of a next-
generation OTHR. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is 
expected to contribute funds to this JCTD in fiscal year 2009 
as well.
    The Joint Requirements Oversight Council has validated a 
Joint Capabilities Document for homeland air and cruise missile 
defense of North America, which documents significant 
surveillance gaps in the approaches to the United States. The 
OTHR JCTD is intended to address these vulnerabilities. U.S. 
Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command 
(NORTHCOM/NORAD), the sponsors of the JCTD, submitted a high-
priority requirement to augment funding for the OTHR JCTD to 
conduct technology risk reduction activities.
    This JCTD will capitalize on the large investment of the 
Australian Ministry of Defense in OTHR technology. The risk-
reduction initiative would procure a copy of a brass board 
next-generation radar design developed by Australia. This brass 
board would be used to develop and test technology to enhance 
performance.
    The committee believes that this project merits support and 
applauds the joint efforts of the Department of Defense and DHS 
to find innovative solutions for securing U.S. airspace. The 
committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 
62234D8Z, and $1.9 million in Other Procurement, Air Force, 
line 24, General Information Technology, for OTHR JCTD risk 
reduction.

Chemical agent fate response planning tool

    The budget request included $203.7 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but 
included no funds to develop analytic tools to plan appropriate 
responses to chemical exposures. The committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million in PE 62384BP to develop an 
appropriate response planning tool that uses the chemical agent 
fate database and supports consequence management and 
operations effects assessments. Such a response planning tool 
would fulfill a requirement of the Joint Operational Effects 
Federation.
    The committee notes that the chemical agent fate program is 
a joint service program that focuses on the acquisition and use 
of chemical warfare agent persistence data to improve the 
ability of U.S. forces to protect themselves and their 
equipment while operating in a chemically contaminated 
environment. It also has applications to domestic consequence 
management planning and response.

Chemical and biological applied research

    The budget request included $203.7 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological defense applied research. The 
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62384BP 
to develop advanced processes for the production of molecular 
therapeutics against botulism, with the goal of advancing to 
Phase I clinical studies. The committee notes that there is no 
vaccine approved and licensed by the Food and Drug 
Administration against the botulism toxin, and therapeutic 
approaches may hold significant potential.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million 
in PE 62384BP for rapid response countermeasures for chemical 
and biological threats. This effort is intended to provide a 
low-cost sensor that can be widely distributed and networked to 
provide early warning capabilities. This effort would address 
issues related to sensitivity, selectivity, miniaturization, 
manufacturability, and low-cost production. The committee notes 
that progress in these areas would permit a significant 
improvement in chemical and biological sensors.

Chemical and biological infrared detector

    The budget request included $203.7 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but 
included no funds to develop miniaturized infrared detection 
technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 62384BP to continue development and 
miniaturization of an advanced infrared detection system for 
chemical and biological agents. The objective is to demonstrate 
a functional prototype that operates at high speed and 
sensitivity with minimal false alarm rates. This technology may 
provide an end product with significantly lower logistical 
burden than other technologies.

Multivalent Marburg and Ebola vaccine

    The budget request included $203.7 million in PE 62384BP 
for chemical and biological defense applied research, but 
included no funds to advance Marburg/Ebola vaccine candidates 
into clinical trials. The committee recommends an increase of 
$4.5 million in PE 62384BP to help move candidate vaccines 
against Marburg and Ebola viruses into Phase I clinical trials, 
including clinical lot production for human injection, human 
safety trials, and human dose escalation studies. The 
Department of Defense is currently evaluating five different 
vaccine technologies for Marburg and Ebola, and this additional 
funding would permit progress toward selecting the most 
promising candidate for advanced development.

DARPA technology transition

    The budget request included $371.5 million in PE 62702E, 
$107.9 million in PE 63286E, and $287.0 million in PE 63287E 
for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) science 
and technology projects. The committee recommends reductions of 
$4.5 million in PE 62702E for laser guided bullet research; 
$3.0 million in PE 63286E for the A160 program; and $10.0 
million in PE 63287E for the Integrated Sensor is Structure 
program. The committee is concerned that these programs do not 
have clearly delineated transition paths in place, or 
programmed funding in place, so that they will be adopted by 
any service program of record or science and technology 
activity.
    The committee commends DARPA's efforts to invest in high 
risk, high payoff technologies, but believes that scarce 
science and technology resources should be used in a manner 
well coordinated between the science and technology executives 
of the military services and DARPA.

Three-dimensional integrated circuit technologies

    The budget request included $211.5 million in PE 62716E for 
applied research in electronics technology. To support efforts 
to miniaturize defense technologies, the committee recommends 
an additional $2.5 million for research on three-dimensional 
integrated circuits for use in sensors and other defense 
applications.

Blast mitigation and protection

    The budget request included $211.1 million in PE 62718BR 
for technologies to defeat weapons of mass destruction. The 
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62718BR 
for blast mitigation and protection analysis and software 
development to improve the Vulnerability Assessment and 
Protection Option analytic tool used by the Defense Threat 
Reduction Agency to predict the effects of explosive blasts on 
buildings, and to design protection and mitigation options for 
military facilities. Given the threat of terrorists using high 
explosives, this analytic capability is an important component 
of force protection assessment and planning.

Comprehensive National Incident Management System

    The budget request included $211.1 million in PE 62718BR 
for technologies to defeat weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
62718BR for the Comprehensive National Incident Management 
System being developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 
to improve national capabilities to analyze potential 
catastrophic events such as pandemic influenza and terrorist 
attacks using WMD. This technology has the potential to 
significantly improve the ability of the Department of Defense 
and U.S. Northern Command to analyze, model, and plan for such 
catastrophic events, including the ability to provide support 
to civil authorities for consequence management of such events.

Special operations technologies

    The budget request included $23.1 million in PE 116401BB 
for special operations technology development. The committee 
notes that the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) 
has highlighted ``tagging, tracking, and locating'' as a key 
technology challenge. To support development of tracking 
technologies, the committee recommends an additional $2.0 
million in PE 1160401BB for the development of multi-sensor 
data fusion systems to enhance detection and discrimination of 
targets hidden in foliage.
    The budget request included $2.5 million in PE 1160407BB 
for special operations forces medical technology development. 
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for the 
development of portable devices to diagnose traumatic brain 
injuries.

Blast trauma research

    The budget request included $80.0 million in PE 63122D8Z 
for technology support for combating terrorism. To help address 
issues of traumatic brain injuries suffered by military 
personnel, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 
for development of threshold blast-induced traumatic brain 
injury data that will provide safe weapons operations 
guidelines, safe standoff distances for the use of explosions 
in combat training and operations, and inform engineering 
design considerations of force protection equipment. The 
committee directs that this work be performed in coordination 
with the activities of the Department of Defense Blast Injury 
Research Program Coordinating Office.

Blackswift

    The budget request included $70.0 million in PE 63287E and 
$50.0 million in PE 35206F for the Blackswift Test Bed. The 
Blackswift program seeks to develop ``an extended duration 
hypersonic test bed which will allow for the study of tactics 
for a hypersonic airplane.'' The committee recommends a 
reduction of $40.0 million from PE 63287E for the Blackswift 
program. The committee directs the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA), Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering (DDRE), the Air Force, the Prompt Global Strike 
Office, and the newly established Joint Technology Office for 
Hypersonics to review the program to ensure that it is focused 
on addressing the highest priority hypersonics technological 
gaps in order to operationally field hypersonic capabilities in 
the future. The committee recommends that the remaining $30.0 
million requested for Blackswift in PE 63287E be used to 
continue the program.
    The committee notes that the 2006 National Research Council 
report, ``Future Air Force Needs for Survivability'', states:

          Hypersonic missiles with ranges comparable to those 
        of current missiles could increase targeting timeliness 
        and flexibility and thus increase operational utility 
        in the 2018 time frame. It is not clear, however, 
        whether a hypersonic cruise aircraft (other than a 
        missile) designed for long-range flight and recovery 
        offers unique capability and operational utility. 
        Furthermore, it is unlikely that such an air-breathing 
        hypersonic platform, other than a missile, will be 
        available in the near term.

    The committee notes that although it is widely agreed that 
the best opportunity for near-term transition of hypersonics 
technology will be in cruise missile or conventional strike 
systems, especially to support time critical and prompt global 
strike missions, sufficient resources for research, 
development, or testing of the systems has never been focused, 
coordinated, or sustained within the Department of Defense. 
Examples of these programs include the DARPA Falcon Hypersonic 
Technology Vehicle (HTV-2), the Air Force's X-51 program and 
the now terminated HyFly and Revolutionary Approach to Time 
Critical Long-Range Strike Project (RATTLRS) programs. The 
committee feels that these programs have all suffered from a 
lack of investment in addressing fundamental technical issues 
and insufficient resources for required flight test and 
demonstration activities.
    The committee further notes that many fundamental research 
and technology challenges related to hypersonics flight were 
identified by both the DDRE National Aerospace Initiative and 
the 2004 National Research Council's ``Evaluation of the 
National Aerospace Initiative,'' including air-breathing 
propulsion and flight test, materials, thermal protection 
systems, structures, integrated vehicle design and 
multidisciplinary optimization, and integrated ground testing 
and numerical simulation/analysis remain insufficiently funded. 
In addition, there is still no set of approved requirements for 
any hypersonic missile or aircraft.
    Finally, the committee notes that the Blackswift program 
has been projected to cost at least $800.0 million, with DARPA 
and the Air Force sharing the cost according to a recent 
memorandum of understanding. Given the severe constraints on 
the Air Force budget, especially in science and technology and 
test and evaluation, the committee is not convinced that the 
Air Force will be able to provide the resources necessary to 
keep this ambitious program on schedule or on budget, 
especially since it is not tied to any specific requirement. 
The committee notes that one of the drivers of the technical 
program is the need to have the aircraft perform typical 
aircraft maneuvers, such as an aileron roll, although it is not 
clear why that will necessarily enhance the program's 
probability of transition into formal acquisition. The 
committee also directs that the Air Force and DARPA work to 
ensure that the flight test program is consistent with the 
projected goals of the program.
    Further, the Air Force (AF) budget request included $50.0 
million in PE 35206F to ``provide a temporary repository for AF 
funds supporting DARPA Blackswift unmanned, hypersonic ISR 
[intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] and strike 
vehicle.'' The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 
million for this effort. The committee directs that the 
remaining funding be invested in addressing the highest 
priority technological challenges to meet Air Force needs in 
hypersonics technology.

Engineered biological detectors

    The budget request included $337.9 million in PE 63384BP 
for chemical and biological defense advanced technology 
development, but included no funds to develop engineered 
biological warfare agent detectors. The committee recommends an 
increase of $2.7 million in PE 63384BP for development of a 
prototype biological sensor for assessment and testing as a 
spiral upgrade of current generation systems. Effective 
detection of biological warfare agents is the key to 
contamination avoidance and force protection in a biologically 
contaminated area.

Improved chemical, biological, and radiological filters

    The budget request included $337.9 million in PE 63384BP 
for chemical and biological defense advanced technology 
development, but included no funds for developing improved 
chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) filtration 
capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million in PE 63384BP for design, engineering, and prototyping 
of CBR filters. Improved filters would fill a requirement for 
enhanced collective protection capability against a wide 
spectrum of threat agents. Such filters would be multi-use and 
multi-platform configurable, for use in buildings, ships, and 
shelters.

Raman chemical identification system

    The budget request included $337.9 million in PE 63384BP 
for chemical and biological defense advanced technology 
development, but included no funds to develop a miniaturized 
Raman chemical agent identification system. The committee 
recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63384BP for 
development of a hand-held chemical agent identification system 
that is smaller and more reliable than existing systems, in 
order to improve the ability of U.S. forces to rapidly identify 
unknown chemical agents and substances for force protection 
purposes.

Command and control gap filler joint capabilities technology 
        demonstration

    The budget request included $206.3 million in PE 63648D8Z, 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for 
Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD). While $4.0 
million of these funds will be allocated for the command and 
control for North American surveillance gap filler JCTD, U.S. 
Northern Command (NORTHCOM) testified that the JCTD is 
underfunded by $22.8 million. This JCTD is the number one 
unfunded priority for NORTHCOM.
    As identified in the National Strategy for Aviation 
Security, the National Strategy for Maritime Security, and the 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council-validated Homeland Air and 
Cruise Missile Defense of North America Joint Capabilities 
Document, there are significant airspace surveillance 
deficiencies and gaps--7 years after September 11, 2001.
    The gap filler JCTD will remedy many of these deficiencies 
by integrating feeds from all the disparate surveillance 
systems operated by government departments and agencies, 
including classified systems, and sustain development of new 
technology for extending air surveillance based on the 
utilization of ambient radio waves from such sources as 
television and radio station broadcasts.
    The committee recommends an authorization of $26.8 million 
for this gap filler JCTD, $22.8 million above the requested 
amount.

High performance manufacturing technologies

    The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63680D8Z 
for the manufacturing science and technology program. The 
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for efforts 
on the development of high performance manufacturing 
technologies as authorized by title II, subtitle D of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163). The committee directs that the funding be used 
for development of test beds and prototypes of advanced 
manufacturing technologies, diffusion of advanced manufacturing 
processes throughout the industrial base, and the development 
of technology roadmaps to ensure that the Department of Defense 
can access required manufacturing and technology capabilities 
in critical defense technologies.

Defense Logistics Agency technology programs

    The budget request included $19.4 million in PE 63712S for 
generic logistics research and development and technology 
demonstrations. Following the recommendation of the Defense 
Science Board Task Force on DOD Energy Strategy, the committee 
recommends a series of investments designed to address defense 
energy requirements using lower cost, reliable, alternative 
fuel sources. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million for research on advanced biofuels to support military 
operations, $10.0 million to continue efforts to develop 
advanced vehicle fuel cell technologies and demonstrate the use 
of hydrogen technologies for defense operations, and $3.0 
million for the development of deployable microgrid systems 
that can utilize a variety of energy sources to produce 
installation and vehicle power.
    The committee notes that the National Research Council 
Committee on Manufacturing Trends in Printed Circuit Technology 
recommended that the Department of Defense ``should ensure 
access to new printed circuit board (PrCB) technology by 
expanding its role in fostering new PrCB design and 
manufacturing technology.'' DOD recently concurred with the 
recommendations of that report, but has yet to make any 
significant changes in investment level in this area. In 
support of that recommendation, the committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million for the development of emerging 
critical interconnect and printed circuit board technology.

Superlattice nanotechnology

    The budget request included no funding in PE 63720S for 
microelectronics technology development and support. The 
committee notes that the 2007 report on the Defense 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Program states a goal 
``to utilize breakthroughs in nanotechnology to provide 
revolutionary devices and systems to advance warfighter 
capabilities and battle systems capabilities.'' Consistent with 
that goal, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 
in PE 63720S for research on superlattice nanotechnology to 
develop high power, high temperature devices for defense 
applications.

Special warfare domain awareness technologies

    The budget request included $113.9 million in PE 63826D8Z 
for quick reaction special projects. The committee notes that 
the 2007 Naval Science and Technology (S&T) Strategic Plan's 
asymmetric and irregular warfare focus area has a specific 
objective of enhancing riverine surveillance capabilities 
through development of ``common and persistent'' maritime 
pictures. To support this objective, the committee recommends 
an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63826D8Z for development of 
augmented reality systems to support special warfare 
situational awareness needs.

Weapon of mass destruction exercises

    The budget request included $114.9 million in PE 63828D8Z 
for joint experimentation programs. The committee notes that 
the United States Joint Forces Command's joint experimentation 
program funds concept development and experimentation efforts 
and leads the development, exploration, and assessment of new 
joint concepts, organizational structures, and emerging 
technologies. A focus of committee attention this year has been 
the threat of domestic use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 
by terrorist groups, and the capabilities of the Department of 
Defense to participate in actions to detect and defeat or 
mitigate the effects of such an event. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 63828D8Z to 
support experimentation activities related to the potential use 
of WMD against critical domestic infrastructure, and directs 
that such activities involve the participation of other 
appropriate Federal, local and State entities so as to better 
inform planning and coordination efforts.

Arrow missile defense program

    The budget request included approximately $1.0 billion for 
terminal defense programs in PE 63881C, of which $74.3 million 
is for the U.S.-Israeli cooperative program of development and 
procurement for the Israeli Arrow missile defense system. The 
Arrow Weapon System provides Israel defense against regional 
ballistic missiles, including against Iran's Shahab-3 missile. 
Israel is interested in an upper-tier follow-on to its Arrow 
system in order to provide more capable protection against 
missiles with possible weapons of mass destruction warheads.
    There are several options under consideration for an upper-
tier follow-on to the Arrow system. One would be to develop a 
new Israeli Arrow-3 interceptor, which would also require the 
development of a new long-range radar for the system to be 
effective. Other options include the possibility of using 
existing U.S. missile defense technologies, such as the 
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system or a land-
based version of the Standard Missile-3 interceptor, which is 
used by the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, to 
provide highly effective upper-tier defense for Israel. The 
committee believes that developing a new Israeli interceptor 
missile and long-range radar would be very expensive and would 
duplicate existing U.S. capabilities. Therefore, the committee 
encourages the full consideration of U.S. systems as 
potentially the most effective and cost-effective approach to 
providing an upper-tier missile defense capability for Israel.
    The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 
63881C for the Missile Defense Agency to fully evaluate the 
potential of existing U.S. missile defense systems and 
technologies--particularly a land-based version of the Standard 
Missile-3 interceptor used in conjunction with a THAAD radar--
to provide an operationally effective, timely, and cost-
effective upper-tier missile defense capability for Israel. 
Such an option would be fully interoperable with deployed U.S. 
missile defense systems, which could reinforce and support the 
Israeli upper-tier system.

Short-range ballistic missile defense

    The budget request included approximately $1.0 billion for 
terminal defense programs in PE 63881C, of which $44.9 million 
is for cooperative U.S.-Israeli development of a short-range 
ballistic missile defense system called the David's Sling 
Weapon System. This system is being developed in response to 
short-range missile and rocket attacks against Israel from 
Lebanon. The United States is sharing the development of the 
system in order to ensure that it is compatible with U.S. 
missile defense systems, and to provide an option for the U.S. 
military to procure the system in the future if needed. The 
committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million in PE 63881C 
to accelerate the development of the David's Sling Weapon 
System in order to permit timely fielding of the system.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

    The budget request included approximately $1.0 billion for 
terminal defense programs in PE 63881C, of which $864.9 million 
is for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program. 
The committee recommends a transfer of $65.0 million from the 
budget request, and an increase of $75.0 million, to a new 
defense-wide procurement line for long lead procurement of 
interceptors and ground equipment for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4. 
This would permit awarding the long lead contract for both Fire 
Units 3 and 4 together, and would lead to a more efficient and 
economical production plan. It would also permit a production 
rate of three interceptors per month, which would reduce the 
cost of each interceptor while delivering the capability sooner 
than the current plan.
    The committee is deeply disappointed that the budget 
request for the THAAD system would delay the delivery of 
interceptors for Fire Units 3 and 4 by a year and cause a 
production gap of 18 months. This delay would be wholly 
inconsistent with the need to provide our regional combatant 
commanders with the near-term effective defenses they need to 
defend our forward-deployed military forces, allies, and 
friends against the many hundreds of short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles that exist today. As specified in section 
223 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the THAAD system is a 
high priority near-term system, and the committee believes that 
delaying its production for budget reasons is unacceptable.
    The committee notes that after the budget was submitted and 
congressional objections were raised to the planned delay, the 
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) acknowledged that the delay would 
be unacceptable and indicated that it plans to change the 
allocation of fiscal year 2009 funding within the funds 
requested for THAAD, and to use an inflation adjustment, to 
provide $65.0 million for long lead procurement of interceptors 
for Fire Unit 3, to avoid the delay and the production gap. The 
committee believes MDA should not have planned for the delay 
and the production gap in the first place.
    A number of new requirements were placed on the THAAD 
program by the Army, including requirements to meet new 
insensitive munitions standards, and to use a 5-ton truck 
instead of a High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 
for the fire control vehicle. Given the extraordinary 
acquisition authority and flexibility granted to the MDA, the 
committee is disappointed that MDA did not budget the funds 
from lower priority programs outside of THAAD to meet these new 
requirements while keeping the THAAD production schedule on 
track.
    Furthermore, the committee is disappointed that MDA is only 
planning and budgeting to procure four THAAD Fire Units and 96 
THAAD interceptors. As the Commander of the Joint Force 
Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense told the 
committee in April 2007, the Joint Capabilities Mix study, 
conducted by the Joint Staff in association with the combatant 
commands and the military departments, concluded that the 
United States needs about twice as many THAAD and Standard 
Missile-3 interceptors as the number currently planned, just to 
meet the minimum inventory needs of the combatant commanders to 
provide protection against existing short- and medium-range 
missile threats. That minimum number does not include the 
normally required spare, reserve, and reload missiles.
    The committee observes that the United Arab Emirates has 
expressed an interest in purchasing three THAAD fire units and 
144 THAAD interceptors for defense of its territory, which is 
about the size of Maine. Their purchase would be 50 percent 
larger than the number of interceptors currently planned by MDA 
for all U.S. forces, and would include twice as many 
interceptors per fire unit as MDA is currently planning for 
U.S. forces.
    The committee believes that MDA's current plan for THAAD 
acquisition is wholly inadequate and needs to be changed to 
meet the current needs of our combatant commanders. The 
committee believes that MDA should focus on meeting at least 
these minimum inventory upper-tier requirements as its highest 
acquisition priority, and directs MDA to report to the 
congressional defense committees by no later than December 1, 
2008 on its plans to meet the inventory requirements identified 
in the Joint Capabilities Mix study.
    Additionally, the committee notes that section 223(b) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) required the Department of Defense to 
request any long lead procurement for THAAD Fire Units 3 and 4 
in the fiscal year 2009 budget request using procurement funds, 
rather than research and development (R&D) funds. In addition, 
section 223(c) of that act prohibits the use of fiscal year 
2009 R&D funds for procurement of long lead items for Fire 
Units 3 and 4. Therefore, the committee recommends that all 
$140.0 million in long lead procurement funds for THAAD Fire 
Units 3 and 4 be provided in a new defense-wide procurement 
line, as described elsewhere in this report and displayed in 
the funding tables in this report.
    Finally, the committee is concerned that MDA has not 
planned or budgeted any funds in fiscal year 2009 for procuring 
a THAAD radar. This would create a gap in THAAD radar 
production and cause a schedule disconnect between fire unit 
delivery and radar delivery. Therefore, the committee also 
recommends an increase of $40.0 million in the new missile 
defense procurement funding line for long lead procurement of 
the THAAD radar for Fire Unit 3, to avoid a production gap and 
a schedule disconnect. The committee urges MDA to synchronize 
the THAAD fire unit and radar production and delivery 
schedules.

Ground-based Midcourse Defense

    The budget request included $2.1 billion in PE 63882C for 
the ballistic missile defense midcourse element, which is the 
source of funds for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) 
system deployed in Alaska and California, and for the proposed 
deployment of the GMD system in Europe.
    The budget request included $19.2 million for long lead 
procurement of operational 2-stage Ground-Based Interceptors 
(GBIs) intended for European deployment, ``pending successfully 
meeting the criteria described in Section 226 of the FY08 
National Defense Authorization Report [sic].'' Section 226 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) prohibits the use of fiscal year 2008 
funds to acquire or deploy the planned operational European 2-
stage GBIs until the Secretary of Defense, after receiving the 
views of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
(DOT&E), certifies that the system has a high probability of 
working in an operationally effective manner. The committee 
recommends a similar provision for fiscal year 2009, as 
described elsewhere in this report.
    The committee notes that the proposed 2-stage interceptor 
intended for deployment in Poland is still being designed and 
developed, and is not scheduled to have its first booster 
flight test until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, and 
the first planned intercept test in the second quarter of 
fiscal year 2010. Given that a number of GMD flight tests have 
been delayed substantially, it is possible that these 2-stage 
GBI tests will also be delayed.
    In an October 2007 report, DOT&E noted the ``significant 
differences'' between the proposed GMD deployment with a 2-
stage interceptor in Europe and the existing GMD system 
deployed in the United States with a 3-stage GBI. According to 
the report, ``European defense using GMD assets is a completely 
new mission area for GMD.'' The report provided DOT&E's initial 
testing concept for the proposed European deployment, which 
would include three flight tests, two of which would be 
intercept tests. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) originally 
planned to conduct only two flight tests prior to deploying the 
system, one of which would be an intercept test. This planned 
flight test program would not meet the DOT&E minimum test plan 
concept. It is difficult to envision the certification required 
of the Secretary of Defense under these circumstances. However, 
MDA has recently agreed to conduct three flight tests, in 
accordance with the DOT&E test concept. The committee views 
this as a positive development.
    The committee notes that the long lead items planned for 
procurement with the $19.2 million are 100 percent common with 
both the 2-stage and 3-stage GBIs. Therefore, they could be 
used for purposes other than being deployed on operational 2-
stage GBIs if necessary, including for flight test and ground 
test interceptors for either 3-stage or 2-stage GBIs. 
Consequently, the committee recommends authorizing the 
requested $19.2 million, with the understanding that if there 
are problems with the 2-stage GBI development program, these 
long lead assets would be used for other purposes, rather than 
being wasted or deployed before the 2-stage GBI is certified as 
ready.
    The committee notes that MDA has changed its GMD test plans 
to accelerate the testing of the 2-stage GBI intended for 
European deployment. As part of this change, MDA merged the 
objectives of two previously planned tests (FTG-06 and FTG-07) 
into one test (FTG-06), so that the next test could be the 
first Booster Verification Test (BVT-01) of the 2-stage GBI. 
Consequently, the target originally planned and budgeted for 
FTG-07 is no longer needed for that test, since that test's 
objectives are being merged into FTG-06. The committee directs 
MDA to inform Congress of any significant changes in its test 
and target plans on a timely basis.
    The committee notes that the political process toward 
negotiation and ratification of agreements with Poland and the 
Czech Republic on the proposed deployment of a missile defense 
system on their territory will take additional time to resolve 
itself, possibly through fiscal year 2008. This additional time 
may delay the ability of MDA to obligate or expend fiscal year 
2008 funds into fiscal year 2009, which would presumably delay 
its ability to obligate and expend fiscal year 2009 funds. The 
committee is concerned that MDA will have difficulty executing 
funds requested for fiscal year 2009 for the proposed European 
deployment.
    For example, Congress appropriated $28.0 million in fiscal 
year 2008 for site activation activities, but those funds 
cannot be obligated or expended until the governments of Poland 
and the Czech Republic give final approval to the proposed 
deployments on their respective territories. This raises 
concerns that the funds requested in fiscal year 2009 for site 
activation will be premature or unexecutable. The committee 
directs MDA to keep the congressional defense committees 
informed regularly of the plans and schedule for executing 
funds for the proposed European deployment, and of any delays 
in the planned execution of funds.

Airborne Laser

    The budget request included $421.2 million in PE 63883C for 
the Airborne Laser (ABL) technology demonstration program. The 
committee notes that the budget request for ABL included $15.8 
million for planning and analysis related to a possible second 
ABL aircraft. Since the first planned proof of principle shoot-
down demonstration test is not scheduled until the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 2009, and since even a successful test 
will not provide answers to the many questions about whether 
the ABL technology could be made into an effective, suitable, 
survivable, and affordable weapon system, the committee 
believes it is inappropriate to provide any funds in fiscal 
year 2009 related to a potential second ABL aircraft.
    Any decision on whether to proceed with a possible second 
ABL aircraft should only be made after much more information is 
available about the likelihood that the system could eventually 
provide a militarily useful, operationally effective, and 
affordable missile defense capability, when balanced against 
other missile defense programs, capabilities, and needs, and 
also balanced against other Department of Defense priorities 
and needs. As described elsewhere in this report, the committee 
recommends a provision that would limit the availability of 
funds for procurement of a second ABL aircraft until the 
Secretary of Defense certifies that it has a high probability 
of accomplishing its mission in an operationally effective, 
suitable, survivable, and affordable manner.
    The Government Accountability Office has noted that the ABL 
program has a history of significant cost increases and 
schedule delays. When the program was originally proposed in 
1996 it was estimated that the technology demonstration program 
would cost $1.0 billion and be completed in 2001. However, 
after numerous cost and schedule delays, it is now estimated 
that the technology demonstration program will cost more than 
$5.1 billion and be completed in 2010, a 500 percent cost 
growth and 9-year delay. In 2007, because of integration issues 
and technical challenges, the program increased its costs by 
$253.0 million and added a year to the program schedule.
    As the committee noted last year, the ABL program remains a 
far-term, high risk technology development and demonstration 
program. If the technology could be made to work in a 
militarily useful and operationally effective manner, it would 
not produce an operational capability before 2018. The 
committee believes there are higher priorities for missile 
defense funds, particularly the near-term capabilities 
currently needed by our combatant commanders to defend our 
forward-deployed forces, allies, and other friendly nations 
against many existing short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction in PE 
63883C of $15.8 million, the funds requested for work related 
to a second ABL aircraft, and a reduction of $30.0 million for 
work not related to maintaining the schedule for the planned 
proof of principle shoot-down demonstration test in 2009.

Real-time non-specific viral agent detector

    The budget request included $51.3 million in PE 63884BP for 
chemical and biological defense advanced component development 
and prototypes, but included no funds for development of a 
mobile non-specific viral agent detector. The committee 
recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 63884BP for 
development of a mobile real-time non-specific viral agent 
detector that would improve current detection capabilities. The 
committee notes that this effort could provide a significant 
upgrade to the Joint Biological Agent Identification and 
Diagnostic System (JBAIDS). This technology, which would add 
the capability to detect infectious diseases, would be useful 
both for forward-deployed forces and for potential domestic 
consequence management missions.

Ballistic missile defense sensors

    The budget request included $1.1 billion in PE 63884C for 
radars and other sensors for the Ballistic Missile Defense 
System (BMDS), including sensors for different missile defense 
elements.
    The committee notes that there is no funding requested in 
fiscal year 2009 to begin production of the THAAD radar for 
Fire Unit 3, designated AN/TPY #8, and is concerned that this 
would result in a production gap and a schedule disconnect with 
Fire Unit 3. The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 
million in a new defense-wide missile defense procurement 
funding line for long lead procurement of AN/TPY #8 for THAAD 
Fire Unit 3, as described elsewhere in this report.
    The committee is concerned that the consolidation of all 
sensor work in one program element may have the unintended 
consequence of reducing focus on and responsiveness to the 
needs of the individual elements for the timely production of 
sensors for the element weapon systems, such as THAAD radars to 
accompany THAAD fire units. The committee expects the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) to ensure that funding and production of 
radars for THAAD will be synchronized with the production 
schedules for their associated fire units.
    The committee notes that the budget request included $26.5 
million for the site activation and deployment of a forward-
based X-band radar, designated AN/TPY-2 #3, to an undecided 
location, and $18.0 million for overseas site security for this 
radar. Since the MDA has not decided where to deploy such a 
radar, has not begun negotiations with any foreign nation for 
such a deployment, and there is no agreement with any foreign 
nation to deploy such a radar on its soil, the committee 
believes this funding is premature. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a reduction of $26.5 million in PE 63884C for costs 
related to site activation and deployment of AN/TPY-2 #3 radar 
to an undecided foreign location, and a reduction of $18.0 
million for overseas site security of AN/TPY-2 #3.
    The budget request included $20.3 million to operationalize 
the External Sensors Lab boost-phase capabilities. Since there 
are no boost-phase missile defense systems within a decade of 
deployment, the committee believes this funding is premature. 
The committee recommends a reduction of $20.3 million in PE 
63884C.
    The committee is aware of a proposal to enhance the BMDS 
sensor system by deploying additional shipboard radars to 
increase the coverage and availability of mobile radar 
networks, while potentially producing significant cost savings. 
This mobile sensor enhancement concept is worth evaluating to 
determine if it would provide a significant improvement to the 
capability of an integrated BMDS. The committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63884C for the MDA and the Navy 
to evaluate this concept and determine whether it merits 
further development.

Kinetic Energy Interceptor

    The budget request included $386.8 million in PE 63886C for 
the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program. This is $172.8 
million more than requested in the fiscal year 2008 budget 
request for KEI, $46.7 million more than appropriated, and a 
very large sum of funds for a program at such an early stage of 
development. The committee notes that the KEI program was 
originally conceived as a boost-phase risk reduction 
alternative to the Airborne Laser (ABL) program because of the 
high risks associated with the ABL technology development 
effort.
    However, the KEI program is no longer considered primarily 
a boost-phase program; it is being managed as a technology 
development program for a mid-course follow-on to the Ground-
based Interceptors (GBIs) being deployed as part of the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. The GBIs are scheduled 
to be deployed through 2013, and will have many years of useful 
operational life following deployment, so there is no urgent 
need to develop a follow-on now to a system that will not 
complete its deployment for another 5 years.
    The fiscal year 2008 budget request for KEI focused on 
developing the technology for a high-performance silo-based 
interceptor, rather than as a mobile system, with a flight test 
in 2008. That flight test has now been delayed until 2009 
because of technology problems with the development program.
    The budget request for KEI represents another significant 
change in direction and a significant increase in program 
funding at a time when the program has lost focus and 
direction, and when the long-range midcourse defense capability 
is being addressed by the GMD system with its GBI interceptors. 
The committee is concerned that this level of funding is more 
than can be effectively executed during fiscal year 2009. The 
committee believes there are higher priority needs in the 
missile defense program, such as near-term defenses against 
existing short- and medium-range missiles, and that the KEI 
program can and should take more time to develop technologies 
that may be useful in the decades to come when the GBIs reach 
the end of their useful operational life, if there is not 
another capability that is more suitable. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a reduction of $45.0 million to PE 63886C 
for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor development program.

Ballistic missile defense reductions

    The budget request included $432.3 million in PE 63890C for 
the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Systems Core program; and 
$288.3 million in PE 63891C for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 
Special Programs. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 
million in PE 63890C for BMD Systems Core; and a decrease of 
$100.0 million in PE 63891C for MDA Special Programs to 
partially offset the additional funding needed for the Aegis 
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program and its Standard 
Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor, the Terminal High Altitude Area 
Defense (THAAD) program, and other high priority near-term 
missile defense programs described elsewhere in this report. 
The committee notes that the proposed funding reductions are 
for projects that are of lower priority than the near-term 
capabilities provided by the Aegis BMD, SM-3, and THAAD 
programs, which meet the needs of combatant commanders to 
defend our forward-deployed forces, allies, and other friendly 
nations against the existing threat of many hundreds of short- 
and medium-range ballistic missiles. The Joint Capabilities Mix 
study concluded that we need about twice as many THAAD and SM-3 
interceptors as currently planned just to meet the minimum 
operational requirements of our regional combatant commanders.

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)

    The budget request included $1.2 billion in PE 63892C for 
the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program, including 
$57.0 million for long lead procurement of Standard Missile-3 
(SM-3) Block IA interceptor missiles. The committee notes that 
the Aegis BMD system with its SM-3 interceptor is the only 
midcourse defense system currently being deployed to provide 
defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missile 
threats to our forward-deployed forces, allies, and other 
friendly nations. The Aegis BMD system has had an impressive 
record of successful tests against short- and medium-range 
targets, including a multi-mission test against a ballistic 
missile and an air-breathing threat, and a multiple target 
intercept against two ballistic missile targets.
    The SM-3 missile is being developed to have increasing 
capability with each successive version, from Block IA, to 
Block IB, to the Block IIA version being developed jointly with 
Japan. The Aegis BMD system and its SM-3 interceptor have the 
potential to provide a significant measure of defensive 
capability in various regions of the world, and to increase its 
capability to conduct intercepts based on radar tracks from 
offboard sensors, known as ``engage on remote,'' and to engage 
missiles early in their midcourse flight, including in the 
ascent phase.
    The committee notes that the Joint Capabilities Mix (JCM) 
study, conducted by the Joint Staff, concluded that U.S. 
combatant commanders need about twice as many SM-3 and THAAD 
interceptors as currently planned to meet just their minimum 
operational requirements for defending against the many 
hundreds of existing short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles. The committee is deeply disappointed that the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) has not planned or budgeted to acquire 
more than a fraction of the SM-3 interceptors needed to meet 
the warfighters' minimum operational needs. The committee 
believes that achieving at least the JCM levels of upper tier 
interceptors in a timely manner should be the highest priority 
for MDA, and expects the Agency to modify its plans and budgets 
to meet our combatant commanders' current operational needs. In 
section 223 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), Congress 
specified the Aegis BMD system and its SM-3 interceptor as a 
high priority near-term program for the Department of Defense 
to focus on. As the JCM study makes clear, the Department has 
failed to do so.
    Section 223(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) requires that any 
long lead or advance procurement for SM-3 Block IA missiles in 
the fiscal year 2009 budget be requested in procurement funds, 
rather than in research and development (R&D) funds. Section 
223(c) of that act prohibits the use of fiscal year 2009 R&D 
funds for procurement of long lead items for SM-3 Block IA 
missiles. The Department chose not to comply with the law, and 
requested R&D funds for procuring long lead items for the SM-3 
missiles. This is not acceptable. The committee notes that the 
Department is obliged to comply with the law, and expects the 
Department to do so.
    To be consistent with the law, and to correct the 
Department's failure to comply with the law, the committee 
recommends that all long lead funds for SM-3 missiles be 
authorized and appropriated in a new defense-wide procurement 
line described elsewhere in this report. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends a transfer of $57.0 million from PE 63892C 
to the new procurement line for long lead procurement of SM-3 
Block IA missiles. The committee also recommends an increase of 
$20.0 million in that new procurement line for the procurement 
of long lead items for an additional 15 SM-3 interceptors, to 
begin the process of increasing the inventory of SM-3 missiles 
toward the JCM levels. The committee notes that MDA does not 
plan any procurement of SM-3 Block IB missiles after fiscal 
year 2010, which is inconsistent with the JCM study conclusions 
concerning the need for about twice as many SM-3 and THAAD 
missiles as are currently planned. The committee expects MDA to 
modify its plans and budgets for the fiscal year 2010 budget 
submission to address the inventory levels indicated by the JCM 
study.
    To address these numerous concerns, the committee 
recommends an increase of $80.0 million in PE 63892C for the 
following projects: $20.0 million for facilitizing an increase 
in SM-3 production capacity to four missiles per month; $20.0 
million to reduce schedule risk for the Block IB missile; and 
$40.0 million for accelerated development of enhanced Aegis BMD 
capability for ``engage on remote'' and ascent-phase 
engagement.

Space Tracking and Surveillance System

    The budget request included $242.4 million in PE 63893C for 
the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS). The 
committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has again 
changed the approach to the STSS program for fiscal year 2009, 
but the program is out of phase with the schedule of related 
events.
    The committee notes that the launch of the two STSS 
demonstration prototype satellites has been delayed until 
November 2008. MDA plans to gather on-orbit data from these 
demonstration satellites through 2010. These data will be 
necessary to determine further changes in design of the 
objective follow-on STSS satellites. The committee is concerned 
that MDA plans to issue a Request for Proposals for the 
objective follow-on satellites in August of 2008, several 
months before the demonstration satellites are launched, and 
well before actual orbital data are available to help determine 
the final design parameters of the follow-on satellites.
    Furthermore, the committee notes that MDA and the Air Force 
are just beginning to obtain actual on-orbit data from the 
initial Space-based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites, and the 
results appear both promising and important for understanding 
what our current capabilities are and what our future 
requirements will be for the STSS system. Before MDA finalizes 
its design for the follow-on STSS satellites, the committee 
believes it should work closely with the Air Force to fully 
evaluate the data available from the SBIRS system, and evaluate 
the data provided by the two STSS demonstration satellites. 
Only then will MDA be in a position to determine the final 
design for the STSS system. The STSS program schedule is ahead 
of need, and ahead of the data it will need to determine the 
final requirements and design for the objective STSS 
satellites.
    Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 
million in PE 63893C, to allow more time to evaluate on-orbit 
data from SBIRS and from the two STSS demonstration satellites 
before proceeding with the final design of the objective STSS 
satellites.
    The committee also urges MDA to coordinate with the Air 
Force to use the SBIRS ground stations for STSS residual 
operational capability and for the STSS objective system.

Multiple Kill Vehicles

    The budget request included $354.5 million in PE 63894C for 
the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program. This is nearly a 
three-fold increase from the fiscal year 2007 funding level, 
and an increase of nearly $125.0 million from the fiscal year 
2008 funding level, which represents large budget growth in the 
MKV program.
    The committee notes that the MKV program is at an early 
development stage, with the preliminary design review not 
expected until the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 and the 
first substantive knowledge point not expected until mid-2011. 
The committee is concerned that the program cannot effectively 
execute the large amount of funding requested for a program at 
such an early stage of development. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $50.0 million in PE 63894C.
    The committee believes that, although the MKV program is 
pursuing a laudable technical goal, there are higher priorities 
for current missile defense funds, including providing our 
regional combatant commanders with near-term capabilities to 
defend our forward-deployed forces, allies, and other friendly 
nations against the many hundreds of short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles that exist today.
    The committee also notes that the Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) plans to fund two contractor teams with competing 
technology approaches, but does not plan to have a competitive 
selection of the best technology in the future. Although MDA is 
pursuing development of MKV technologies for long-range 
midcourse defense interceptors and for the Standard Missile-3 
Block II interceptor, keeping two contractor teams for the 
indefinite future is both expensive and possibly unnecessary. 
The committee urges MDA to consider a competitive selection 
process to determine which of the two contractor teams has the 
best technology, and to select that team as the only team to 
fund in the future.
    The committee is also concerned that the consolidation of 
all kinetic kill vehicle technology development in one office 
may have the unintended effect of removing continued focus on 
developing or improving existing and planned unitary kinetic 
kill vehicles, such as the unitary kill vehicle planned for the 
Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missile being developed jointly by 
the United States and Japan.
    As the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has 
reported, there are still no validated or accredited models and 
simulations available to provide confidence in the performance 
of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle deployed on the Ground-Based 
Interceptors of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. It 
is essential to fully demonstrate and improve the capability of 
this system, which will likely be deployed for at least 20 
years.
    The committee urges MDA to consider whether it needs to 
take mitigating actions to ensure that the unitary kill vehicle 
programs have sufficient focus and resources, particularly in 
the event that the MKV efforts do not yield effective or 
affordable results.

Space test-bed

    The budget request included $29.7 million in PE 63895C for 
Ballistic Missile Defense System space programs, of which $10.0 
million is for a ``space test-bed.'' The committee recommends a 
decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63895C, the entire amount 
requested for the space test-bed.
    As the committee noted last year, the proposed space test-
bed is intended to be the initial step toward deploying space-
based interceptors. There is no need or justification to deploy 
space-based interceptors, and therefore no justification to 
create the proposed space test-bed. The committee notes that 
Congress denied all funding requested for the proposed space 
test-bed in fiscal year 2008.
    There are, however, numerous real missile threats in 
existence today for which near-term missile defense 
capabilities are needed. The Joint Capabilities Mix study has 
concluded that there is a need for about twice as many Standard 
Missile-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors 
just to meet the minimum operational requirements of the 
regional combatant commanders against the hundreds and hundreds 
of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles that currently 
can target our forward-deployed forces, allies, and other 
friendly nations. As Congress made clear in section 223 of the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee believes it is a high 
priority to fund these near-term effective systems that meet 
current combatant commander needs against existing threats.

Missile Defense Agency funding reduction

    The budget request included $9.3 billion for the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) in research, development, test, and 
evaluation funds. The committee recommends an undistributed 
reduction of $268.7 million in MDA funding.

Corrosion control technologies

    The budget request included $5.1 million in PE 64016D8Z for 
the Department of Defense Corrosion Program. The committee 
notes that corrosion damage to Department of Defense (DOD) 
assets has been estimated to lead to a $20.0 billion annual 
cost to the Department. The committee supports the research 
efforts of the DOD Corrosion Program, which seeks to develop 
and demonstrate new technologies to mitigate the effects of 
corrosion. To support these efforts the committee recommends an 
additional $3.0 million for research on the use of polymer 
materials and coatings to enhance corrosion prevention and 
mitigation. The committee also recommends an increase of $3.5 
million to develop comprehensive technical, maintenance, and 
training systems to reduce asset life cycle costs related to 
corrosion damage.

Conflict modeling technologies

    The budget request included $6.0 million in PE 64670D8Z for 
human, social, and cultural behavioral research and 
engineering. The committee supports enhancing Department of 
Defense capabilities to model and anticipate future conflicts 
and better understand political-social systems and their 
interactions. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 
million in PE 64670D8Z to continue conflict modeling, planning, 
and outcomes experimentation activities.

Prompt global strike

    The budget request included $117.6 million in PE 64165D8Z 
for prompt global strike. The committee recommends an increase 
of $30.0 million in PE 64165D8Z and $45.0 million for the 
advanced hypersonic boost glide vehicle.
    The budget request for prompt global strike included $40.0 
million for the alternative re-entry system/warhead engineering 
and delivery vehicle options/development, which would support 
work on various aspects of a biconic re-entry vehicle for use 
as a possible prompt global strike option. The committee 
believes that work on the biconic vehicle is premature and 
therefore recommends that no funds be made available for the 
manufacture of the biconic vehicle. Work on technologies to 
support prompt global strike systems generally, such as command 
destruct, fuze development, and similar generally applicable 
technologies, however, should continue. The committee notes 
that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 
hypersonic glide vehicle HTV-2 is scheduled for testing in 
fiscal year 2009, and that if these tests are successful, there 
would be no need for the biconic vehicle.
    The committee recommends that of the funds that were 
included in the budget request for the biconic vehicle, 
approximately $15.0 million shall be available for the advanced 
hypersonic boost glide vehicle in addition to the $30.0 million 
for a total of $45.0 million. The committee notes that funding 
for the advanced hypersonic boost glide vehicle was previously 
included in PE63305A. The committee believes that all prompt 
global strike activities, with the exception of the DARPA 
funded work on HTV-2, which will terminate at the end of fiscal 
year 2009, should be consolidated in one budget account.

Net-enabled command and control

    The budget request included $147.3 million in PE 33158K for 
the Joint Command and Control Program for Net-enabled command 
and control, as well as $8.0 million in Procurement, Defense-
wide (PDW) Line 21 and $35.7 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) Line 120 for the same program. 
This is out of a total investment of $227.4 million for the 
program and nearly $675.0 million between fiscal years 2007 and 
2010 to develop and begin to field the program. The committee 
recommends decreases of $90.0 million in PE 33158K, $25.0 
million from OMDW, and $7.9 million from PDW.
    The committee notes that both the Director of Defense 
Research and Engineering's (DDRE) technology readiness 
assessment and the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation's ongoing oversight of the Network enabled command 
and control (NECC) program have raised issues regarding 
technical risk, aggressive and overly optimistic scheduling, 
and unclear testing and deployment strategies. The DDRE 
assessment noted a lack of definition of the program as to 
requirements or agreement on program definition with 
stakeholders. The committee understands that these and other 
NECC program issues could lead to a delay in the Milestone B 
decision approval for the program.
    In addition, the committee notes that the services are 
currently developing information systems under the Global 
Command and Control System Family of Systems (GCCS-FOS), which 
are planned for eventual integration into a single NECC 
architecture. The committee is not aware of any service that 
has a well articulated and coordinated transition strategy and 
deployment and integration schedule for this complex system of 
systems. Finally, the committee notes that GCCS-FOS 
technologies have not yet been fully fielded, nor will users 
and testers have significant operational experience with the 
newest versions of the GCCS-FOS for a number of years. Since 
NECC is designed to be the follow-on program for the GCCS-FOS, 
the committee recommends a reduction in its funding growth 
until technical risk, testing, and program schedule issues are 
addressed in a coordinated and joint fashion amongst all 
stakeholders, and a set of operational lessons learned and 
capability gaps from GCCS-FOS deployments is developed and 
analyzed.

Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program

    The budget request included $133.9 million in PE 64940D8Z 
for the Central Test and Evaluation (T&E) Investment Program 
managed by the Test Resource Management Center, originally 
established by the committee in section 231 of the Bob Stump 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 
Law 107-314). The 2007 Strategic Plan for DOD T&E Resources 
noted that ``outdated threat missile fly-out models reduced the 
effectiveness of both active and passive countermeasures 
testing.'' To help address this shortfall, the committee 
recommends an additional $5.0 million for development of 
surface-to-air missile hardware simulators. The strategic plan 
also commented that ``the expanded computing capability being 
deployed in the upcoming C4ISR [command, control, 
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance] systems will need to be replicated at the 
(test) ranges by upgrading existing or acquisition of new 
hardware and software systems.'' Consistent with addressing 
that need, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million 
for development of range network enterprise systems to support 
distributed testing.

Anti-tamper technologies

    The budget request included $2.2 million in PE 65790D8Z for 
Small Business Innovation Research program activities. The 
committee notes that the 2007 Defense Science Board study, 
``Mission Impact of Foreign Influence on DOD [Department of 
Defense] Software,'' found that ``software deployed across the 
DOD continues to contain numerous vulnerabilities and weak 
information security design characteristics.'' To address these 
weaknesses the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 
for the development of anti-tamper software systems.

Force transformation directorate

    The budget request included $20.7 million in PE 65799D8Z 
for the force transformation directorate. The committee 
recommends a reduction of $15.0 million from this account, and 
directs that the remaining requested funds be used to 
transition programs to other activities within the Department 
of Defense. The committee notes that the disestablishment of 
the Office of Force Transformation (OFT) has diminished the 
role that this program plays in driving transformative defense 
technologies and operational concepts. The committee 
acknowledges that OFT has made significant contributions to the 
development of active protection systems and operationally 
responsive space capabilities, but feels that the Department of 
Defense needs to reconsider the totality of programs that all 
seemed to be aimed at a common, laudable purpose of driving 
force transformation.
    The committee believes that the efforts of the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, United States Joint Forces 
Command, and the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration 
program, among others, can be coordinated to serve the role 
that was intended for the research and development programs of 
OFT at its inception. The committee notes that all these 
efforts are under the oversight or direct control of the 
Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE), and so 
directs the DDRE to strongly consider merging force 
transformation program activities with these other efforts.

Software assurance education and research

    The budget request included $394.1 million in PE 33140G for 
the Information Systems Security Program, but no funds for the 
development and integration of secure software design practices 
in curricula of higher education institutions that teach 
computer science and software engineering.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for 
this purpose at one of the institutions designated as a 
National Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance 
Education by the National Security Agency.

Status of Operational Readiness and Training Systems

    The budget request included $36.4 million in PE 33150K for 
the Global Command and Control System (GCCS). The committee 
notes that this program includes funding to continue the 
development, testing, and fielding of the legacy Status of 
Operational Readiness and Training Systems (SORTS) that is 
currently being replaced by the Department of Defense's 
objective system, the Defense Readiness Reporting System. The 
committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million in PE 33150K 
for SORTS.

Industrial Base Innovation Fund

    The budget request included $20.5 million in PE 78011S for 
industrial preparedness programs. The committee notes that the 
2006 Defense Science Board Task Force on the Manufacturing 
Technology Program called for increased investment in 
manufacturing research and technology over a 5-year period to a 
level of ``one percent of the RDT&E budget,'' to align the 
Department of Defense with the level of manufacturing 
technology investments in the early 1980s. The committee notes 
that for the fiscal year 2009 budget request this would be 
$796.0 million. The actual Manufacturing Technology (Mantech) 
budget request is only $198.0 million.
    The committee further notes that the Director of Defense 
Research and Engineering called for an increase in funding for 
``manufacturing science technology'' in the range of $50.0 to 
$70.0 million per year. The committee notes that the fiscal 
year 2009 Mantech budget request is only an increase of $4.6 
million over the fiscal year 2008 budget request and a decrease 
of $80.4 million relative to fiscal year 2008 appropriated 
levels.
    The committee notes that investing in innovation in the 
defense industrial base can only serve to help address many of 
the issues facing the Department of Defense. For example, the 
committee believes that the development of innovative 
manufacturing capabilities can lead to lower cost, more 
efficient production of defense systems, potentially lead to 
spin-off commercial technologies that can support national 
manufacturing and industrial base needs, and address critical 
manufacturing assured supply chain issues that limit the 
Department's capability to acquire critical defense equipment 
and technologies, such as body armor, production of advanced 
aerospace materials, and electronic components.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 
million in PE 78011S to continue the Industrial Base Innovation 
Fund. The committee directs that the funds be executed jointly 
with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial 
Policy, to ensure that critical shortfalls in the defense 
industrial base are addressed. The committee directs that the 
highest priority on investments be made in areas that support 
accelerating the surge production of items likely to be 
required in near-term military operations and in areas to 
preserve or expand diminishing critical defense industrial 
base.

                       Items of Special Interest


Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense funding

    The committee notes that the Aegis Ballistic Missile 
Defense (BMD) system was used in February for a one-time 
mission to intercept and destroy a decaying U.S. satellite 
before it re-entered the earth's atmosphere. This mission, 
which cost more than $90.0 million, used considerable Aegis BMD 
assets and funding. The committee is concerned that the Aegis 
BMD program will not be fully reimbursed for its expenses in 
preparing for, testing for, and conducting the mission, as well 
as for restoring the system's components to their normal 
missile defense configuration, and replacing the Standard 
Missile-3 interceptor used for the mission. If the Aegis BMD 
program is not reimbursed for these expenses, it would not be 
able to perform some $90.0 million worth of planned and 
budgeted activities that have been approved by Congress. This 
would not be acceptable.
    The committee directs the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and 
the Department of Defense to ensure that the Aegis BMD program 
is fully reimbursed for all expenses related to the one-time 
satellite intercept mission, so that all previously planned, 
funded, and approved Aegis BMD work will proceed without delay. 
The committee directs MDA to report to the congressional 
defense committees by no later than October 1, 2008 on the 
status of the full reimbursement of the Aegis BMD program.

Agency relocation

    The budget request included $28.0 million in PE 65897E for 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) relocation 
costs, and another $45.0 million is programmed for this purpose 
in fiscal year 2010. The committee believes that the request 
and budget plan have not yet been adequately justified and 
directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a report on the 
plan for DARPA's relocation, as described below. The committee 
notes that current plans for the relocation call for the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to lease a new facility for DARPA 
and to provide funding for the building's outfitting to meet 
mandated force protection requirements.
    The plans also call for the Department to provide funding 
for other DARPA requirements, including facilities to handle 
classified information, specialized heating, ventilation, and 
air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and specialized information 
technology requirements. The committee is unclear as to whether 
the Department will be responsible for restoring the building's 
specialized modifications at the end of DARPA's new lease to 
the satisfaction of the building owner and what that cost will 
be to the government.
    The committee is unclear as to the rationale and cost 
implications for selecting a commercial lease requiring 
extensive upgrades over government facilities, which government 
facilities were evaluated as alternatives to leasing, what 
cost-benefit analyses were performed, and what criteria were 
used to finally select an option. The committee understands 
that the DARPA leasing plan has been approved through the 
General Services Administration and by the relevant 
congressional committees of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the 
committee notes that upon expiration of its current lease in 
2010, DARPA could potentially be relocated onto other existing 
government property, which may more cost-effectively meet force 
protection, classified facility, and information technology 
requirements and therefore save valuable resources.
    The committee notes that research agencies like DARPA need 
to be able to attract the finest technical talent to perform 
their critical mission for DOD. The committee notes that DARPA 
has had some difficulty attracting appropriate talent, despite 
special personnel flexibilities available to the organization, 
and has plans to use commercial executive search firms to 
enhance recruiting efforts. The committee understands that an 
agency's location plays a role in its ability to attract 
talent, and further notes that some organizations with similar 
hiring challenges, like the Office of Naval Research and Air 
Force Office of Scientific Research are located in commercially 
developed areas, while others, such as the Naval Research 
Laboratory, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the National 
Security Agency, and the Army's Night Vision Laboratory are 
not.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees detailing the 
justification for the agency relocation plans and requested 
funding, no later than September 1, 2008. The report shall 
include a cost-benefit analysis comparing the leasing of 
commercial property and upgrading those facilities to meet 
DARPA requirements to alternative options; describe which 
government properties, buildings, and facilities were evaluated 
as alternatives to commercial leasing; detail the costs that 
will be incurred to the government to restore the building to 
the lessor's requirements at the end of the lease; describe the 
criteria that were finally used to select an option; and 
include certifications that to perform its mission efficiently, 
DARPA must maintain a headquarters in the Washington, DC 
region, that no commercial or government facilities currently 
exist within that region to meet DARPA's unique requirements, 
and that the selected plan for relocation represents the best 
value for the Department.

Executive helicopter program (VH-71A)

    The budget request included $1,047.8 million in PE 64273N 
for continued development of the executive helicopter, VH-71A. 
The VH-71A program is intended to provide the replacement 
helicopter for transportation of the President and Vice 
President of the United States, heads of state, and other 
dignitaries. The administration established challenging 
performance requirements and an aggressive fielding schedule 
for the program, reflecting an elevated level of urgency to 
field this new capability for post-9/11 operations. In an 
effort to manage programmatic risk and meet the stressing 
demands for this new capability, the program adopted an 
incremental fielding strategy for the 23 aircraft to be placed 
in service. The first portion of the program, called Increment 
One, would deliver five aircraft, with four of these aircraft 
used to provide an initial limited capability to fulfill 
immediate presidential transport requirements. The second 
portion of the program, called Increment Two, would deliver 19 
aircraft to complete all of the presidential support 
requirements.
    The committee is aware that the VH-71A program has 
encountered significant challenges associated with modifying 
the selected commercial aircraft to meet the cost and schedule 
requirements for Increment One. As a result, the Navy plans for 
only limited employment for Increment One aircraft due to 
expectations that service life of these helicopters will be 
limited.
    The Navy has found that Increment Two, which was originally 
planned for concurrent development with Increment One, is 
beyond the reach of the cost, technical, and schedule baseline 
established for the program. Faced with this realization, the 
Department of Defense has restructured the program with a focus 
on validating requirements, establishing realistic cost and 
schedule estimates, eliminating concurrency, and developing a 
new baseline for future budget requirements.
    Recognizing that the fiscal year 2008 budget would have 
been inadequate to support concurrent efforts on both Increment 
One and Increment Two, the Department issued a ``stop work'' 
order on Increment Two. Although the program continues to 
refine an independent cost assessment in support of future 
budget decisions, initial estimates point toward a cost overrun 
of at least 70 percent. This level is well in excess of the 
percentages that would trigger a breach of the Nunn-McCurdy 
limits for major acquisition programs.
    While it is evident that the VH-71A program will require a 
Nunn-McCurdy certification in order to proceed with Increment 
Two, the Department has apparently chosen to wait until 
submission of the annual Selected Acquisition Report to 
initiate the certification process. This delay appears to be 
based on a technical interpretation that, since the government 
has stopped all work on Increment Two and has neither finalized 
cost assessments nor revised the program's baseline to reflect 
the cost growth, it is premature to declare that thresholds 
have been breached. Under this scenario, the Navy would 
potentially receive fiscal year 2009 funding and be in a 
position to sign a contract modification for Increment Two 
prior to declaring a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Subsequent to signing 
such a contract, they would then declare a Nunn-McCurdy breach 
and, thereby, trigger the certification process that this 
provision of law requires.
    The committee realizes that the administration has spent 
significant time conducting senior level analysis and review of 
this critical program's requirements, cost, and schedule, in 
conjunction with the ongoing restructure and deliberations on 
the fiscal year 2010 budget. However, the committee is 
concerned that program cost and schedule may be further 
impacted by potential delays associated with meeting the 
requirements for Nunn-McCurdy certification, and encourages the 
Department to initiate proceedings in accordance with section 
2433 of title 10, United States Code. The committee notes that 
the Secretary of the Air Force did not wait until either the 
Air Force had signed a contract or had received additional 
funds before declaring a Nunn-McCurdy breach on the C-5 
reliability enhancement and re-engining program.
    Because of all these concerns, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to submit a VH-71A report to the 
congressional defense committees outlining VH-71A program:
      (1) performance requirements;
      (2) revised cost estimates;
      (3) causes for cost growth;
      (4) detailed breakout of cost growth related to under-
estimated requirements; and
      (5) actions being implemented to reduce and control 
development and production costs.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to 
identify alternatives for extending the service life of 
Increment One aircraft and increasing their utility in the 
effort to provide greater return on this investment.
    The committee directs that, of the amounts authorized for 
fiscal year 2009 for VH-71A Executive Helicopter Development 
(PE 64273N), the Secretary may obligate no funding for 
Increment Two efforts until: (1) the Defense Department 
completes VH-71A unit cost reporting requirements as prescribed 
by section 2433 of title 10, United States Code; and (2) the 
Secretary of the Navy submits the VH-71A report described above 
to the congressional defense committees.

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

    Military threats to amphibious operations have forced the 
Navy and Marine Corps to develop a concept of operations, 
referred to as Operational Maneuver from the Sea, for launching 
an amphibious assault from over the horizon. The Navy and 
Marine Corps are fielding the full capability required to 
launch amphibious assaults from 25 miles at sea--with one 
critical exception: the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). 
Designed to rapidly transport marines ashore and maneuver to 
inland objectives, the EFV is the missing component of the 
Marine Corps' amphibious assault triad, which also includes the 
Landing Craft Air Cushion and the MV-22 Osprey.
    Under current plans, the EFV will not achieve Initial 
Operational Capability (IOC) until 2015 and Full Operational 
Capability (FOC) until 2025--about 35 years after the EFV 
program entered development. Without the EFV, amphibious 
assault operations would require the Navy to bring amphibious 
ships and escorts close to shore to disembark the aged Advanced 
Amphibious Vehicles, exposing the ships and the marines to 
anti-access threats. The committee is very concerned that the 
EFV program plan places the Marine Corps' primary mission 
capability--amphibious operations--at risk for an unacceptably 
long duration.
    The committee understands that the EFV program has 
experienced serious developmental delays and cost growth, which 
have added years to the schedule. The program is emerging from 
a critical Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, and the restructured 
program has added 4 years of further development prior to a 
full-rate production decision. The program's cost challenges, 
however, are compounded by the protracted production schedule 
planned for the vehicle. The Marine Corps projects that its 
budget will permit a production rate limited to 55 vehicles per 
year once full-rate production begins in 2016. This low rate of 
production will delay full fielding while discarding potential 
cost benefits afforded by more economic rates of procurement.
    The committee believes that greater priority must be given 
to achieving EFV Full Operational Capability within the 
Department of Defense's equation for balancing requirements 
with developmental risk and budget constraints. Accordingly, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to evaluate 
cost and risk for alternatives that would improve upon current 
EFV Initial Operational Capability projections, and accelerate 
Full Operational Capability to meet the 2020 threat baseline. 
The Secretary shall report the results of this evaluation to 
the congressional defense committees with submission of the 
fiscal year 2010 budget request. The report shall include an 
assessment of total program cost, annual budget requirements, 
and technical risk for the accelerated program, and compare 
these results with the program of record. Additionally, the 
report shall provide an assessment of the operational impact 
and risk to amphibious assault capabilities associated with 
delaying FOC to 2025.

Global Positioning System

    The committee is concerned that the space, ground control, 
and user equipment segments of the Global Positioning Satellite 
system (GPS) program are not well synchronized. The committee 
notes that the ground control needed to utilize the M-code on 
the GPS IIR satellites will not be fully available until after 
the last of the GPS IIR satellites is launched and the user 
equipment will not be fully fielded until after the first of 
the M-code GPS IIR satellites reaches the end of its useful 
life. The first M-code GPS IIR satellite was launched in 
September 2005. The M-code is a special code to allow military 
users to continue using GPS signals in an area of operation 
while jamming other signals.
    Looking ahead to the GPS III satellites, the committee 
notes that the possibility for a similar disconnect among 
space, ground control, and user equipment is significant. The 
Air Force reduced anticipated funding in the early years and 
the GPS schedule is compressed with very little margin. 
Moreover, the contract award is late, with the space segment 
originally scheduled for award in 2007. The committee is 
concerned that adequate management attention be paid to the GPS 
program to minimize additional risks to the program.

Improved commercial imagery integration

    The committee notes that the government is investing 
substantial funds in the commercial imagery industry to meet 
important operational requirements of the combatant commands 
and the intelligence community. However, the tasking, 
processing, exploitation, and dissemination (TPED) systems for 
commercial imagery and imagery collected by government-owned 
assets are not integrated, which causes commercial imagery 
resources to be under-utilized and other inefficiencies. The 
government needs to be able to task commercial imagery 
collection against specific areas without revealing that fact 
to the world, to be able to share commercial imagery within the 
national security community freely, and to routinely and 
automatically task commercial satellites when they are the 
logical choice to satisfy a requirement. These needs will 
become critical if the administration and Congress decide to 
shift a larger proportion of imagery collection requirements to 
the commercial sector.
    Accordingly, the committee directs that, as feasible within 
available funding, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency 
and the National Reconnaissance Office complete the tasking 
prototype effort, including an integrated constellation 
optimization tool; integrate commercial imagery data streams 
into the existing national dissemination network; and begin 
systems engineering and development to enable SECRET-level 
operations within the commercial-data provider facilities and 
networks.
                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Explanation of tables
    The following tables provide the program-level detailed 
guidance for the funding authorized in title III of this Act. 
The tables also display the funding requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 2009 budget request for 
operation and maintenance programs, and indicate those programs 
for which the committee either increased or decreased the 
requested amounts.
    These tables are incorporated by reference into this Act as 
provided in section 1002 of this Act. The Department of Defense 
may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the 
tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set 
forth in budget justification documents of the Department of 
Defense) without a reprogramming action in accordance with 
established procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding 
changes to the budget request are made without prejudice.


                  Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions


Expansion of cooperative agreement authority for management of natural 
        resources to include off-installation mitigation (sec. 311)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the secretaries of the military departments to enter 
cooperative agreements for the management of natural resources 
outside of Department of Defense installations, if the 
cooperative agreements benefit the Department by relieving or 
eliminating current or anticipated restrictions on military 
activities.

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs in 
        connection with Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses 
        Lake, Washington (sec. 312)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental 
Protection Agency for certain costs incurred in connection with 
Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund Site, Moses Lake, Washington.

Comprehensive program for the eradication of the brown tree snake 
        population from military facilities in Guam (sec. 313)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Department of Defense to establish a comprehensive program to 
control and, to the extent practicable, eradicate the brown 
tree snake (Boiga irregularis) population from military 
facilities in Guam and prevent their spread to other areas.
    The committee is concerned about the ecological and 
economic risks posed by the inadvertent introduction of the 
brown tree snake from Guam to other areas in the Pacific region 
and the United States. Force stationing changes in the Pacific 
planned by the Department over the next several years will 
significantly increase the number of department facilities and 
activities on Guam, resulting in an equally significant 
increase in military traffic to and from the island. The 
Department has the responsibility to control and, to the 
maximum extent practicable, ensure that its facilities and 
activities do not contribute to the spread of the brown tree 
snake to other areas.

                 Subtitle C--Workplace and Depot issues


Authority to consider depot-level maintenance and repair using 
        contractor furnished equipment or leased facilities as core 
        logistics (sec. 321)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the military departments to count workload performed by 
Government employees using contractor furnished equipment, or 
in facilities leased to the Government, as sustaining a core 
logistics capability under section 2464 of title 10, United 
States Code, if that work is being performed pursuant to a 
public-private partnership as defined by section 2474 of title 
10, United States Code.
    Section 2474 encourages private sector investment at 
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence. This private 
sector investment may include facilities or equipment. This 
proposed change would authorize partnered workloads performed 
by Government employees using contractor-furnished equipment or 
leased facilities to be counted as core.

Minimum capital investment for certain depots (sec. 322)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 332 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to require the 
Department of Defense to report the separate levels of capital 
investment for Navy and Marine Corps depots. The committee also 
recommends the addition of the following Army arsenals to the 
list of covered depots:
    Watervliet Arsenal, New York
    Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois
    Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas

                          Subtitle D--Reports


Additional information under annual submissions of information 
        regarding information technology capital assets (sec. 331)

    The committee recommends a provision that would synchronize 
the information the Department of Defense provides to both 
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
regarding major Department of Defense information technology 
(IT) investments. The committee believes that the change 
recommended in this provision will make the IT budget 
justification documents more usable to Congress and the public, 
and increase the transparency of the Department's IT programs.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Mitigation of power outage risks for Department of Defense facilities 
        and activities (sec. 341)

    The February 2008 report of the Defense Science Board Task 
Force on DOD Energy Strategy found that, ``critical national 
security and homeland defense missions are at an unacceptably 
high risk of extended outage from failure of the [commercial 
electricity] grid and other crucial national infrastructure.'' 
The task force recommended that the Department of Defense take 
several actions to assess and reduce risk to critical missions 
at fixed installations and activities from the loss of 
commercial power.
    The Department is in the process of evaluating the task 
force report and is developing a comprehensive energy strategy. 
However, the committee is concerned that, despite numerous 
vulnerability studies, the extent of technical and operational 
risks to specific critical missions are not adequately 
assessed, or plans for their mitigation programmed. This 
incomplete assessment coupled with the trend over the last 
several years to place more defense installations onto the 
commercial power grid suggests that Department infrastructure 
energy plans may not be synchronized with an up-to-date 
technical and operational risk evaluation.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that 
would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
comprehensive technical and operational risk assessment for 
mission critical Department installations, facilities, and 
activities; to develop integrated prioritized plans to 
eliminate or mitigate risks; and to establish goals to mitigate 
or eliminate the greatest and most urgent risks. The committee 
further recommends that the Secretary provide the defense 
committees an annual report on the Department's integrated 
prioritized plans and progress on efforts to mitigate or 
eliminate risks to mission critical installations, facilities, 
and activities.

Increased authority to accept financial and other incentives related to 
        energy savings and new authority related to energy systems 
        (sec. 342)

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the authority of the Secretary of Defense to accept financial 
and other incentives related to energy savings and energy 
systems. The provision would authorize the acceptance of such 
incentives in connection with the construction of an energy 
system using solar energy or other renewable forms of energy.

Recovery of improperly disposed of Department of Defense property (sec. 
        343)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the sale or other disposition of military or Department of 
Defense (DOD) property except in accordance with statutes and 
regulations governing such property. If property is disposed of 
in violation of this prohibition, the person holding the 
property would have no right or title to, or interest in, the 
property, and the property would be subject to seizure by 
appropriate law enforcement officials. Under the provision, the 
appropriate federal district court would have jurisdiction to 
determine whether property was improperly disposed of and is 
subject to seizure.
    The DOD has informed the committee that the absence of a 
comprehensive statute has complicated law enforcement efforts 
to recover military and DOD property that has been 
misappropriated or that was the subject of unauthorized 
disposition by members of the armed forces, DOD civilians, 
contractors, and others. For example, the DOD reports that 
ceramic plate inserts for body armor, night vision goggles, and 
munitions list items that were reported as lost or misplaced by 
Navy personnel have later been found for sale on the Internet. 
Recently published reports indicate that military equipment 
offered for sale on the Internet also includes infrared patches 
used to identify U.S. troops on the battlefield, as well as 
spare parts for Chinook helicopters and F-14 fighters. In one 
case, there was even an attempt to sell a Navy airplane over 
the Internet.
    The provision recommended by the committee would address 
this problem by establishing a comprehensive statutory approach 
to the improper disposal of military and DOD property and 
facilitating the recovery of such property regardless of to 
whom it was furnished and who was responsible for its improper 
disposal.

                              Budget Items


                                  Army


Computing services

    The committee recommends a total reduction of $200.0 
million from service and defense-wide operation and maintenance 
accounts that support the procurement and delivery of computing 
services. The reductions include a $50.0 million decrease each 
from Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide accounts. The 
committee does not intend for these reductions to be assessed 
against Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) computing 
services activities. The committee directs the services to 
aggressively explore increased opportunities to utilize DISA 
computing services and eliminate redundant, wasteful service-
specific computing services activities.
    The committee notes that consolidation of computing 
services activities, such as reductions in numbers of computing 
centers, data storage systems, and electronic file servers, has 
saved the Department of Defense an estimated $200.0 million or 
more annually since 1990, according to DISA. Further, a June 
2007 independent assessment of DISA's computing services noted 
that they ``. . . provided world-class computing services that 
enable the DOD community to better execute their missions,'' 
and compared DISA's services favorably to general government, 
federal, and workload peers. The assessment also recommended 
continuing assessment of organizational staffing, structure, 
and realignment, as well as continued maturation of data center 
processes. Finally, the committee notes that uncoordinated, 
Department-wide deployment of servers, mainframes, data 
warehouses, web sites, and other computing services has 
resulted in inefficiencies, underutilization of computing 
infrastructure, and interoperability difficulties.
    The committee recommends that the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Networks and Information Integration initiate 
independent, comparative benchmarking studies of computing 
services across the Department of Defense to inform and 
accelerate the consolidation of the provision of computing 
services to increase efficiency, improve services, and reduce 
costs.

Unmanned aircraft systems concept development

    The budget request included $1.0 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for aviation assets, but provided no 
funds for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) concept development. 
The committee supports the efforts of the Army's Aviation 
Warfighting Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama to develop current 
and future UAS concepts that will meet joint and Army 
operational objectives. The committee expects that the Army's 
UAS concept development will be consistent with the Department 
of Defense's roles and missions review, as required by section 
941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181). This increase is not intended to 
prejudice or influence that report. The committee recommends an 
increase of $3.0 million in OMA for UAS concept development.

Shipping containers

    The budget request included $204.5 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for strategic mobility, but provided no 
funds for shipping containers. The committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million in OMA for the purchase of shipping 
containers.

Life cycle logistics contracting

    The budget request included $7.3 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for base operations support. These 
funds include the cost of providing logistics support to Army 
forces operating around the world. The committee is aware of 
the Army's challenges in contracting for base operation 
services, including shelter, utilities, food, water, and 
sanitization, to meet the logistics needs of forward deployed 
forces. The committee recommends an increase of $21.6 million 
in OMA for the Army Contracting Agency to improve its life 
cycle acquisition planning, solicitation, and negotiation 
activities.

Facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization

    The budget request included $2.1 billion for facilities 
sustainment, restoration, and modernization for the Army. The 
committee recommends an increase of $7.8 million for 
restoration or modernization of barracks.

Second destination transportation

    The budget request included $552.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for service-wide and second destination 
transportation. These funds support the cost of line haul, 
over-ocean, and inland transportation for worldwide movement of 
Army supplies and equipment to and from depots, between 
commands, and to overseas commands by civilian and military air 
and surface modes. Additional funds allow the Army to 
redistribute more equipment and supplies to correct unit 
shortages and increase readiness. The committee recommends an 
increase of $50.0 million in OMA for second destination 
transportation.

Ammunition inspections and warehousing

    The budget request included $450.3 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA) for ammunition management. These funds 
support the management of operations within the life cycle of 
conventional ammunition, including procurement administration, 
storage, distribution, maintenance, and demilitarization. 
Additional funds allow the Army to reduce backlogs in 
ammunition inspections and re-warehousing efforts. The 
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in OMA for 
ammunition management.

                                  Navy


Unobligated Operation and Maintenance balances

    The committee notes that the challenges associated with 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan create a difficult fiscal 
management situation, especially for the Army and Marine Corps. 
However, the Department of Defense continues to under-execute 
its Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations for the 
active and reserve components. According to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Defense had 
$247.3 million in average yearly unobligated balances for 
fiscal years 2003 through 2007. The military departments had 
$1.1 billion in average yearly unobligated balances for fiscal 
years 2003 through 2007.
    The committee recalls that 3 years ago the Department began 
to reduce the O&M portion of its annual funding request and 
future-years defense program before submission to Congress 
based, in part, on the GAO analysis of unobligated balances. 
The Department also underfunds important maintenance and 
activities in its annual request in anticipation of 
supplemental appropriations. Whether made available in annual 
or supplemental appropriations, the Department and services 
must ensure that taxpayer dollars are appropriately managed to 
provide the best possible readiness for the force and avoid the 
expiration of obligating authority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $212.4 million to the Department's O&M 
accounts, as follows: Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $70.0 
million; Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, $72.0 million; 
and Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, $70.4 million.

Overstatements of civilian personnel pay requirements

    Analysis performed by the Government Accountability Office 
based on the services' civilian personnel end strength data as 
of February 2008, projects that the Department of Defense 
civilian personnel costs are overstated for fiscal year 2009 by 
$565.3 million. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease 
of $65.8 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, and a 
decrease of $131.7 million in Operation and Maintenance, Air 
Force for overstatement of civilian personnel pay.

Naval aircraft depot maintenance

    The budget request included $34.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy but only $1.1 billion for aircraft depot 
maintenance. The Navy identified a shortage of resources for 
aircraft depot maintenance for fiscal year 2009. The committee 
recommends an increase of $63.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy for aircraft depot maintenance.

Damage control management

    The budget request included $3.5 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for mission and other ship operations, 
but provided no funds for the development and installation of 
an improved damage control inventory management and stowage 
system for amphibious ships. The committee recommends an 
increase of $3.0 million in OMN for development of a damage 
control management system for amphibious ships.

MK 45 gun depot overhaul

    The budget request included $478.1 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) for weapons maintenance, but provided 
no funds for MK 45 5'' gun depot overhauls. The committee 
recommends an increase of $9.0 million in OMN for MK 45 depot 
overhauls.

                              Marine Corps


Marine Corps shelters

    The budget request included $759.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for operational forces, but 
provided no funds for the Family of Shelters and Tents (FST). 
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in OMMC 
for FST.

Mobile corrosion protection Marine Corps

    The budget request included $502.4 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) for field logistics 
activities. The committee recommends an increase of $7.6 
million in OMMC for mobile corrosion protection and abatement.

                               Air Force


B-52 flying hours

    The budget request included $2.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for flying hours. The committee 
recommends an increase of $47.9 million in OMAF for B-52 
squadron flying hours. The Air Force failed to include adequate 
funding in the budget request to meet the requirements of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181) to maintain 76 B-52 bombers in a common 
configuration and included this funding on the Air Force 
unfunded priorities list.

F-15 depot maintenance

    The budget request included $35.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force of which $2.7 billion is for aircraft 
depot maintenance. The Air Force depot maintenance request 
includes $497.0 million for F-15 repairs related to a 
structural problem identified in an aircraft mishap in November 
2007. After inspections of the F-15 fleet the number of 
aircraft requiring major repair was not as anticipated, 
therefore funds requested for fiscal year 2009 exceed the 
requirement. The committee recommends a reduction of $497.0 
million in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force for F-15 depot 
maintenance.

B-52 depot maintenance

    The budget request included $2.7 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance Air Force (OMAF) for depot maintenance. The 
committee recommends an increase of $48.0 million in OMAF for 
B-52 aircraft depot maintenance. The Air Force failed to 
include adequate funding in the budget request to meet the 
requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to maintain 76 B-52 
bombers in a common configuration and included this funding on 
the Air Force unfunded priorities list.

B-2 depot maintenance

    The budget request included $35.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) of which $2.7 billion is for 
aircraft depot maintenance. The committee notes that B-2 Bomber 
scheduled workload for fiscal year 2009 will be less due to the 
loss of an aircraft in a flight mishap on Guam in February 
2008. The committee recommends a reduction of $2.0 million in 
OMAF.

Engine trailer life extension program

    The budget request included $2.7 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for depot maintenance, but 
provided no funds for engine trailer life extension. The 
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in OMAF to 
begin the re-manufacturing and refurbishing of Air Force engine 
trailers.

Land mobile radios

    The budget request included $2.4 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for air operations base support, 
but provided no funds for land mobile radios. Upgrades to the 
radio system used at Nellis Test and Training Range are 
necessary to comply with required federal communication 
standards. The committee recommends an increase of $2.1 million 
in OMAF for land mobile radios.

National Security Space Institute

    The budget request included $19.5 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for the National Security Space 
Institute (NSSI). The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 
million for the NSSI. The NSSI, which is operated by the Air 
Force, is the space education and professional development 
center for the Department of Defense. The additional funding 
will allow the NSSI to continue to reinstate one advanced 
course, sustain one advanced course, and establish distance 
learning programs. This program is on the Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force's unfunded priorities list.

Advanced ultrasonic inspection of aging aircraft structures

    The budget request included $917.7 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for logistics operations, but 
included no funds for advanced ultrasonic inspection of aging 
aircraft. Ultrasonic inspection of the Air Force's aging fleet 
would provide a non-destructive means to determine the 
structural condition of aircraft, saving time and money. The 
committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in OMAF for 
advanced ultrasonic inspection techniques.

                              Defense-wide


Expanded prisoner of war/missing in action research in North Korea

    The budget request did not include funding to cover the 
costs associated with resumption of recovery operations in 
North Korea for the remains of prisoners of war/missing in 
action (POW/MIA) personnel. The committee recommends an 
increase of $13.7 million for Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-wide.
    The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy recently reported 
to Congress on the organization, management, and budgeting of 
the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC). In that report, he 
stated that ``JPAC is funded to meet its current mission, 
excluding operations in North Korea, if those should be resumed 
at some point.''
    The committee notes that cooperation with North Korea to 
recover the remains of U.S. POW/MIAs was suspended by the 
United States in 2005. The committee views this program as an 
important humanitarian effort that should proceed. Since time 
is a factor for the families of the POW/MIAs, the committee 
urges the Department of Defense to begin talks with the North 
Korean military regarding how to resume recovery operations at 
the earliest possible time.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

    The budget request included $880.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency. Of this amount, $500.0 million was 
requested for the Global Train and Equip program to build the 
security capacity of foreign forces to meet urgent or emerging 
threats. 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), authorizes the 
Global Train and Equip program at a level of $300.0 million 
through September 30, 2008. The Global Train and Equip program 
is reauthorized under this Act through fiscal year 2011 at a 
level of $400.0 million in each fiscal year. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million to OMDW for 
the Global Train and Equip program.

Status of Operational Readiness and Training System

    The budget request included $89.2 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Global Command and 
Control System (GCCS). The committee is aware that this program 
includes funds to continue to support fielding and upgrades of 
the legacy Status of Operational Readiness and Training Systems 
(SORTS) that is currently being replaced by the Department of 
Defense's objective system, the Defense Readiness and Reporting 
System. The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in 
OMDW for SORTS.

Defense Readiness Reporting System

    The budget request included $4.9 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide for the Defense Readiness Reporting 
System (DRRS). The committee recommends an increase of $16.2 
million for the acceleration of the development and deployment 
of DRRS.
    The committee is aware of the challenges associated with 
the accurate, reliable, and timely measurement and reporting of 
the readiness of military forces. The current readiness 
reporting system, Global Status of Resources and Training 
System (GSORTS), is inadequate to meet the demands of the force 
rotation strategy that supports operations in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and around the world. The Department of Defense 
(DOD), Joint Staff, and U.S. Joint Forces Command lack the 
visibility of deployed and non-deployed forces' capabilities 
and readiness required to manage global military commitments.
    In June 2002, DOD issued a directive establishing the DRRS, 
a capabilities-based, adaptive, near-term readiness reporting 
system. The directive requires all components to align their 
readiness reporting processes with DRRS. Since then, we 
understand DOD and the services have taken a number of steps 
but that DRRS is not yet fully operational and aligned with the 
services' reporting processes. As a result, DOD's most recent 
quarterly readiness report to Congress contains both DRRS and 
GSORTS data.
    The committee supports the Department's development of DRRS 
as an important management modernization and replacement for 
GSORTS. However, the committee is concerned that the Department 
has yet to successfully plan, organize, resource, and execute 
tests and full deployment for DRRS's within the Global Command 
and Control System. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense 
committees a report not later than March 1, 2009 on its plan to 
accelerate the full deployment of DRRS and retire GSORTS. The 
committee also directs that the Government Accountability 
Office evaluate the DRRS program, DOD's plan, and identify 
factors affecting DOD's ability to fully develop and implement 
DRRS and retire GSORTS.

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

    The budget request included $39.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Readiness and 
Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI). The committee is 
encouraged that this is $10.0 million more than requested in 
fiscal year 2008.
    The committee believes that the military departments should 
continue to pursue voluntary agreements with other public and 
private entities as authorized under section 2684a of title 10, 
United States Code, to prevent the development or use of 
property that would be incompatible with the mission of an 
installation, and preserve habitat that is compatible with 
environmental requirements that might otherwise result in 
current or anticipated environmental restrictions on military 
bases.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 
OMDW for the REPI and directs that the military departments 
give priority to projects that benefit critical mission 
training sites that have the greatest potential to prevent or 
reduce encroachment through the creation of a compatible use 
buffer zone.

STARBASE Academies

    The budget request included $108.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for Civil Military Programs, 
but did not provide sufficient funds to sustain the operations 
of the 60 existing STARBASE Academies. The committee recommends 
an increase of $5.2 million in OMDW for STARBASE.

                              Army Reserve


Mobile corrosion protection Army Reserve

    The budget request included $87.5 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR) for land forces systems 
readiness. The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million 
in OMAR for mobile corrosion protection and abatement.

Army Reserve military technician cost avoidance

    The budget request included $2.6 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR). Operation and maintenance 
accounts ordinarily fund military technician pay and benefits 
as civilian pay. When mobilized and serving on active duty, 
however, this compensation is paid by military personnel 
appropriations. Based on an analysis of the services' actual 
military technician mobilization data, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) projects that the Army Reserve 
could realize $14.9 million in cost avoidance in fiscal year 
2009. The committee recommends a decrease of $4.5 million in 
OMAR for military technician cost avoidance.

                          Army National Guard


Aircraft humidity protection

    The budget request included $905.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for maneuver units, 
but provided no funds for aircraft humidity protection. The 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the 
readiness and safety of military equipment can be severely 
degraded by corrosion. The most cost-effective means of 
combating corrosion is prevention. The committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million in OMARNG for aircraft controlled 
humidity protection.

Expandable Light Air Mobility Shelters

    The budget request included $905.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for maneuver units 
but provided no funds for Expandable Light Air Mobility 
Shelters (ELAMS). The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 
million in OMARNG for the procurement of ELAMS.

Extended Cold Weather Clothing System

    The budget request included $316.3 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for force readiness 
operations support, but included no funds for the Extended Cold 
Weather Clothing System (ECWCS). The committee recommends an 
increase of $1.0 million in OMARNG for ECWCS.

Rapid Data Management System

    The budget request included $316.3 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for force readiness 
operations support, but provided no funds for the Rapid Data 
Management System (RDMS). RDMS is an integrated data collection 
and management system that allows first responders to gather 
data during field operations. It was successfully tested and 
used by the Marine Corps during Exercise COBRA GOLD 2007, and 
is currently used by the American Red Cross. The committee 
recommends an increase of $9.5 million in OMARNG for RDMS.

Mobile corrosion protection Army National Guard

    The budget request included $120.2 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces 
systems readiness activities. The committee recommends an 
increase of $4.8 million in OMARNG for mobile corrosion 
protection and abatement.

Weapons Skills Trainer

    The budget request included $316.3 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for force readiness 
operations support, but included no funds for the Weapons 
Skills Trainer (WST). The committee notes the high mobilization 
rates of members of the National Guard. Individual and unit 
weapons training are enhanced by the availability of a 
multilevel weapons simulator such as the WST. The committee 
recommends an increase of $3.5 million in OMARNG for the 
Weapons Skills Trainer.

Emergency satellite communications

    The budget request included $120.2 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG) for land forces 
systems readiness. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million in OMARNG for additional authorized Joint Incident 
Scene Communication Capability packages required for disaster 
response.

                           Air National Guard


Controlled humidity protection

    The budget request included $3.6 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) for air operations, but 
provided no funds for controlled humidity protection. The 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the 
readiness and safety of military equipment can be severely 
degraded by corrosion. The Department of Defense spends 
billions of dollars annually to address corrosion damage that 
could be avoided with increased prevention and mitigation 
technology such as controlled humidity protection. The 
committee recommends an increase of $3.6 million in OMANG for 
controlled humidity protection.

Crypto-linguist and intelligence officer initiative

    The budget request did not include sufficient funding for 
airborne crypto-linguists to conduct training and related 
activities. The committee recommends an increase of $750,000 
for Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard for airborne 
crypto-linguists.

                       Items of Special Interest


Assessment of plans for contracting support in combatant command 
        operational plans

    The committee notes the inadequacy of initial planning and 
execution related to contracting support for contingency 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assumptions with respect to 
the scope and duration of post-conflict stability operations 
made by the Department of Defense left military planners with 
little justification to provide for more robust reconstruction 
and civil-military logistics and the contracting support 
necessary for efficient and effective execution.
    The committee believes that contingency plans must have 
comprehensive, detailed, and realistic contracting support 
plans that meet the operational requirements of the force 
before, during, and after combat operations. The Department 
appears to be applying the lessons of Operations Iraqi Freedom 
and Enduring Freedom and notes the recent publication of 
Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff Manual 3133.03C (CJCSM 3133.03C) 
providing planning guidance that requires combatant commanders 
to include contracting support plans in their contingency 
operations plans.
    The committee directs that the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) conduct an assessment of the implementation of the 
directives contained in CJCSM 3133.03C. In conducting this 
assessment the GAO shall also evaluate the contracting support 
plans for those combatant command operations plans as reported 
in the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC) as 
required by section 482 of title 10, United States Code. The 
GAO should base its assessment of contracting support plans on 
the requirements of CJCSM 3133.03C but shall also include an 
evaluation of each plan's assumptions, comprehensiveness, 
feasibility, adequacy of executable detail, resources required 
and available, contracting related operational risk at each 
phase of the plan, and any other aspect of contracting support 
planning useful to this review. The GAO shall provide this 
assessment to the congressional defense committees not later 
than September 30, 2009.

Combatant Commander Initiative Fund

    The budget request included $75.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for the Combatant Commander 
Initiative Fund (CCIF). The committee notes that this fund is 
intended to make small amounts of monies available promptly to 
combatant commanders to enable them to meet unexpected 
contingencies and take advantage of opportunities that arise 
but that are not amenable to the time-consuming reprogramming 
process. The statement of managers accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 
(Public Law 101-189) directs that these funds ``may only be 
used for activities for which funding is not available in a 
timely fashion under existing authorizations and 
appropriations.'' The committee urges the Department of Defense 
to preserve the flexibility of this fund, consistent with the 
intent of Congress, by refraining from programming these funds 
at the beginning of the fiscal year.
    Funding for the CCIF reflects an increase of $50.0 million 
over the fiscal year 2008 level for this fund. The committee 
believes that priority in the use of this $50.0 million in 
additional funding should be given to enabling geographic 
combatant commanders to respond to unanticipated emergencies in 
their respective areas of responsibility by providing urgent 
humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance, particularly 
in foreign countries where U.S. armed forces are engaged in a 
contingency operation. The authority to use the CCIF to provide 
urgent and unanticipated humanitarian relief and reconstruction 
assistance is under the authority added to section 166a(b)(6) 
of title 10, United States Code, by section 902 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364).
    The committee notes that the statement of managers 
accompanying Public Law 109-364 urged the Department to develop 
guidance for the use of the additional authority provided by 
section 902 of that act to ensure that the authority could be 
used quickly and without bureaucratic delay under urgent 
circumstances. That statement of managers also urged that such 
guidance include procedures for coordinating with the relevant 
Department of State country team as a precondition for 
providing assistance under this authority. The committee is 
unaware of the Department having developed such guidance and 
again urges the Department to do so, consistent with the 
statement of managers' recommendations.
    The committee also notes that the additional authority 
provided under section 902 is not intended for use in 
Afghanistan or Iraq so long as Commanders' Emergency Response 
Program (CERP) authority is available for use in those 
countries.
    The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, after consultation with the combatant commanders, to 
submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives by October 31, 2009, 
providing a detailed description of the activities funded by 
the CCIF during fiscal year 2009, and an assessment of the 
benefits derived from those activities.

Commercial satellite communications

    The committee notes that approximately 80 percent of the 
Department of Defense satellite communications capacity is 
currently provided by commercially operated satellites. These 
services are purchased on an as-needed basis, predominately 
with funds made available through supplemental appropriations 
acts or other short-term funding. While the percentages have 
varied, the Department of Defense estimates that as much as 50 
percent of satellite communications capabilities in the long-
term could be provided using commercially operated satellites. 
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review the 
Defense Department commercial satellite communications 
requirements and determine the most efficient and reliable way 
to acquire commercial satellite communications capabilities. 
This review should include the most appropriate funding 
approach for sustained and surge requirements and opportunities 
to involve the commercial satellite industry in planning to 
ensure the capability will be available when and where it is 
needed.

Defense Information Systems Agency working capital fund management

    The committee notes that section 321 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) gave the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) greater 
flexibility to utilize working capital funds (WCF) in small 
modernization projects for its systems. Congress noted that the 
rate of technological advances in information systems 
represents a major challenge to DISA as it attempts to keep 
pace with commercial technology and provide better service to 
its defense customers. The authority provided was intended to 
help address those challenges, by enabling DISA to use flexible 
WCF funds to make investments that would replace outdated, 
unsupported software and hardware systems, and other equipment 
to maintain network performance and functionality.
    The committee notes that there are no mechanisms currently 
available within the DISA WCF to raise capital in order to make 
the investments permitted under the authority granted last 
year. Further, unlike other WCF activities, DISA utilizes 
funding from direct appropriations for technology refreshment 
and modernization purposes. The committee notes that dependence 
on the direct authorization and appropriation of funds for 
systems operated and maintained using WCFs is inconsistent with 
the WCF concept itself. The committee further notes that 
requiring DISA to build technology refreshment into the Defense 
Information Systems Network (DISN) customer rate structure, 
similar to the mechanisms other working capital funds use, 
could increase usage costs for the DISA customer base.
    The committee recognizes the contradiction between the new 
authority and current DISA WCF practices and operations. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of DISA to report 
to the congressional defense committees no later than April 1, 
2009 on planned mechanisms to continue to invest in timely, 
flexible, technology refreshment and modernization on its 
systems; an analysis of the current DISN rate structure and 
customer billing mechanisms and their adequacy for providing 
sufficient funding for technology refreshment needs; and any 
suggested changes to WCF authorities or DISN rate structures 
and mechanisms that may be necessary to provide warfighters 
with the most current, highest performance information systems 
possible.

Funding for military morale, welfare, and recreation programs

    The availability of appropriated funds for military morale, 
welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs is a continuing concern 
to the committee. As the committee learned from hearing 
testimony given this year, many military family organizations 
share this concern. Programs funded through MWR programs, such 
as child care and youth programs, libraries, and fitness 
centers, have always been an important and critical benefit for 
our military families. Now, in light of the multiple and 
lengthy deployments many military families have been facing 
over the past few years, the programs provided through these 
funds are more important than ever. These types of programs and 
benefits are also vital retention tools. While funds for MWR 
have increased slightly over the past few years, the committee 
believes that each of the military departments should consider 
increasing the amount of funds that support MWR programs, in 
order to ensure the best quality of life possible for our 
military families.

Long-range facilities and construction planning at Army ammunition 
        plants and arsenals

    The committee notes the absence of long-range planning for 
the recapitalization and modernization of Army ammunition 
plants and arsenals nationwide. In many cases, these ammunition 
plants and arsenals, operating in facilities that have not been 
upgraded in decades, serve as the sole producer of critical 
components that are absolutely essential to the mission of the 
Department of the Army. The committee further notes that other 
Department of Defense industrial operations such as depots have 
developed comprehensive long-range modernization plans that 
benefit from a mandatory level of recapitalization funding each 
year required by Congress. These long-range plans are essential 
to ensure that Department of the Army industrial operations can 
meet current and future mission requirements with effective, 
efficient systems and equipment that are safe, secure, and 
comply with environmental regulations.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army develop a 
comprehensive long-range plan for each ammunition plant and 
arsenal. Long-range plans should establish a detailed 
investment strategy and priorities to: correct unsafe, 
hazardous, or environmentally harmful working conditions; 
upgrade deteriorated facilities to an adequate condition; 
modernize equipment and manufacturing processes to industry 
standards; and incorporate investments in new technology that 
will improve efficiencies in production. Furthermore, the 
committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to the 
defense committees no later than 180 days after bill enactment 
and annually thereafter with the budget request for a period of 
5 years detailing the following:
    (1) the investment master plan for each ammunition plant 
and arsenal;
    (2) the status of the implementation of such plans to date 
at each plant and arsenal; and,
    (3) the amount contained in the budget request that is 
proposed to be applied to the investment strategy for each 
ammunition plant or arsenal.

Standards for deployable shelters

    The committee recognizes the need for maximum 
interoperability among the services and with civilian 
organizations for certain types of equipment that support both 
contingency military operations and homeland defense missions. 
Deployable expeditionary facilities, such as shelters and tents 
used for housing, medical care, and other combat service 
support functions should meet minimum safety standards and be 
fully interoperable for joint operations, peacekeeping efforts, 
refugee support, and homeland defense missions. In certain 
cases the military services have developed standards, such as 
the U.S. Air Force Operational Requirements Document (ORD) CAF 
316-92-II/IIIB, to ensure that shelters and tents meet 
consistent, interoperable safety and security standards. The 
committee is concerned that all the military services may not 
have a consistent standard to guide acquisition of these 
critical equipment items.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not 
later than May 1, 2009, assessing whether the Department of 
Defense criteria, requirements, and acquisition policies for 
the acquisition of deployable shelters acquired for troop 
housing, medical care, and other combat service support 
functions meet adequate structural, environmental, and security 
standards, and that, to the maximum extent practicable, such 
standards will facilitate optimal interoperability between the 
military and civil support functions.
              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2009, as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
                             -------------------------------------------
                                   2008          2009          2009
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................       525,400       532,400        532,400
Navy........................       329,098       325,300        325,300
Marine Corps................       189,000       194,000        194,000
Air Force...................       329,563       316,600        316,771
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) authorized active-duty end strength for 
the Army at 525,400 and for the Marine Corps at 189,000. 
Additional authority was provided in section 403 of that act to 
increase active-duty end strength for fiscal years 2009 and 
2010 by up to 22,000 for the Army and 13,000 for the Marine 
Corps above the fiscal year 2008 authorized levels of 525,400 
and 189,000, respectively.
    The committee supports the Army and Marine Corps efforts to 
increase their active-duty end strength and commends the Army 
for its efforts to achieve an active-duty end strength of 
547,400 by 2010 rather than 2012 as originally planned. The 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have severely stressed the 
nation's ground forces. In the past year, the Army extended 
troop rotations to 15 months, with only 12 months dwell time 
between deployments. With the ongoing commitments in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the growth in the Army and Marine Corps is clearly 
necessary to assist in alleviating the burden of multiple 
lengthy deployments. The committee recommends an active-duty 
end strength for fiscal year 2009 for the Army and Marine Corps 
of 532,400 and 194,000, respectively.
    The committee recommends an additional 171 active-duty 
personnel for the Air Force above the budget request to support 
the operation and maintenance of 76 B-52 aircraft.

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces


End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2009, as shown 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
                             -------------------------------------------
                                   2008          2009          2009
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of         351,300       352,600        352,600
 the United States..........
The Army Reserve............       205,000       205,000        205,000
The Navy Reserve............        67,800        66,700         66,700
The Marine Corps Reserve....        39,600        39,600         39,600
The Air National Guard of          106,700       106,700        106,756
 the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve.......        67,500        67,400         67,400
The Coast Guard Reserve.....        10,000        10,000         10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authorizations contained in this section include an 
increase of 56 personnel for the Air National Guard. The 
committee believes these additional personnel should be used to 
enhance essential training and readiness missions.

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves 
        (sec. 412)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2009, as shown 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
                             -------------------------------------------
                                   2008          2009          2009
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of          29,204        29,950         29,950
 the United States..........
The Army Reserve............        15,870        16,170         16,170
The Navy Reserve............        11,579        11,099         11,099
The Marine Corps Reserve....         2,261         2,261          2,261
The Air National Guard of           13,936        14,337         14,360
 the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve.......         2,721         2,733          2,733
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee recommends increases of 746 in the Army 
National Guard, 300 in the Army Reserve, 401 in the Air 
National Guard, and 35 in the Air Force Reserve over levels 
approved for fiscal year 2008. The committee supports increases 
in full-time support manning consistent with requested levels 
to increase readiness in the reserve components. The 
authorizations contained in this section include an increase of 
23 personnel for the Air National Guard. The committee believes 
these additional personnel should be used to enhance essential 
training and readiness missions.
    The committee also recommends a decrease from the fiscal 
year 2008 level of 480 in the Navy Reserve, consistent with 
reductions in both active Navy and Navy Reserve end strength. 
The committee recommends an end strength for the Marine Corps 
Reserve equal to the fiscal year 2008 level, consistent with 
the budget request.

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
end strengths for military technicians (dual status) for fiscal 
year 2009, as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
                             -------------------------------------------
                                   2008          2009          2009
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve............         8,249         8,395          8,395
The Army National Guard of          26,502        27,210         27,210
 the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve.......         9,909        10,003         10,003
The Air National Guard of           22,553        22,452         22,459
 the United States..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The authorizations contained in this section include an 
increase of 7 personnel for the Air National Guard. The 
committee believes these additional personnel should be used to 
enhance essential training and readiness missions.

Fiscal year 2009 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 
        (sec. 414)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be 
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2009, 
as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
                             -------------------------------------------
                                   2008          2009          2009
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of           1,600         1,600          1,600
 the United States..........
The Army Reserve............           595           595            595
The Air National Guard of              350           350            350
 the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve.......            90            90             90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum number of Reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for 
        operational support (sec. 415)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2009, as 
shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal year
                             -------------------------------------------
                                   2008          2009          2009
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of          17,000        17,000         17,000
 the United States..........
The Army Reserve............        13,000        13,000         13,000
The Navy Reserve............         6,200         6,200          6,200
The Marine Corps Reserve....         3,000         3,000          3,000
The Air National Guard of           16,000        16,000         16,000
 the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve.......        14,000        14,000         14,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increased end strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 
        Army National Guard and Army Reserve and military technicians 
        (dual status) of the Army National Guard (sec. 416)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) end strength for the 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve, and additional end 
strength for Army National Guard military technicians (dual 
status). The provision would also require that this additional 
end strength be funded out of funds appropriated for fiscal 
year 2009 by titles XV or XVI of this Act.
    The committee notes that full-time support for Army reserve 
component soldiers and units, including AGR personnel and 
military technicians, is critical to the readiness of the 
reserve components. The Department of the Army has continued to 
increase the number of personnel assigned to provide full-time 
support to its reserve components and seeks a fiscal year 2013 
end state of 32,060 AGR personnel in the National Guard, 16,261 
AGR personnel in the Army Reserve, 28,380 military technicians 
(dual status) in the National Guard, and 8,395 military 
technicians (dual status) in the Army Reserve. This provision 
would authorize the Department to accelerate attainment of 
these levels by the end of fiscal year 2009. The committee 
expects the Department to update a 1999 manpower study that 
evaluates the number of AGR and military technician personnel 
required to achieve adequate full-time support to its reserve 
components in light of the increased operational use of the 
reserve components since that study's completion, and to 
include discussion of this requirement in its evaluation of the 
recommendations of the Commission on the National Guard and 
Reserves.

Modification of authorized strengths for Marine Corps Reserve officers 
        on active duty in the grades of major and lieutenant colonel to 
        meet new force structure requirements (sec. 417)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 12011 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the 
limit on the number of Marine Corps majors and lieutenant 
colonels authorized to serve on full-time reserve component 
duty at the end of any fiscal year.

              Subtitle C--Authorizations of Appropriations


Military personnel (sec. 421)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
amounts authorized to be appropriated for military personnel 
accounts of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009.

                              Budget Items


Military personnel funding changes

    The amount authorized to be appropriated for military 
personnel programs in section 421 of this Act includes the 
following changes from the budget request: (1) an increase of 
$316.0 million to increase the pay raise for military personnel 
by an additional 0.5 percentage point; (2) an increase of $12.5 
million for increased active-duty Air Force end strength 
levels; (3) an increase of $3.3 million to reflect increased 
Air National Guard end strength levels; and (4) a reduction of 
$1.1 billion to reflect anticipated unobligated balances, which 
is described in more detail elsewhere in this report.

Military personnel unobligated balances

    The Department of Defense has consistently underexecuted 
its military personnel funding since fiscal year 1995 for 
active and reserve members. The Government Accountability 
Office estimates the average potential unexpended balances for 
fiscal year 2009, based on the most recent data from recent 
years, to be $1.1 billion. The committee recommends a decrease 
of $1.1 billion to the military personnel accounts to reflect 
these anticipated unobligated balances.
                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Modification of distribution requirements for commissioned officers on 
        active duty in general and flag officer grades (sec. 501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 525 of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 
16.3 percent to 16.4 percent the percentage of general and flag 
officers in a military service that may be appointed above the 
grade of major general or rear admiral, and to exclude from 
this limitation those reserve general or flag officers on 
active duty under a call or order to active duty specifying a 
period of active duty of not longer than 3 years.
Modification of limitations on authorized strengths of general and flag 
        officers on active duty (sec. 502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 526 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to designate up to 324 general and flag 
officer positions as joint duty assignments that would be 
excluded from the limitation on the number of general and flag 
officers in each service and would specify the minimum number 
of officers required to serve in these positions for each 
service. The provision would realign the number of general and 
flag officers authorized to serve on active duty in the Army 
from 302 to 222 officers; in the Navy from 216 to 159 officers; 
in the Air Force from 279 to 206 officers; and in the Marine 
Corps from 80 to 59 officers. The provision would also repeal 
section 721 of title 10, United States Code, which limits the 
number of general and flag officers authorized to serve in 
positions outside their own service.
    The provision would also establish goals for the number of 
general officers and flag officers in the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and the military services who serve in acquisition 
positions and who have significant contracting experience. The 
October 31, 2007, report of the Commission on Army Acquisition 
and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations (the 
``Gansler Commission'') attributed contracting failures in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, in significant part, to the Army's lack of 
general officers in the contracting field. The report states:

          The Army's difficulty in adjusting to the singular 
        problems of Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan is in large 
        part due to the fact that there are no Generals 
        assigned to contracting responsibilities. This is a 
        decade-old blight: the cutbacks began in 1991, and no 
        general officers have held an Army contracting position 
        since 1998. In a military environment (especially in an 
        expeditionary environment), the number and level of the 
        Generals associated with a discipline reflects its 
        importance. A General is held accountable for his or 
        her leadership. Today, the Secretary of the Army cannot 
        replace a General and obtain a new start for Army 
        contracting--the Army has no Generals doing 
        contracting.

    The findings of the Gansler Commission are symptomatic of a 
broader decline in the number of acquisition and contracting 
positions across the Department of Defense. In fiscal year 
2000, 104 general officers--roughly 12 percent of all general 
officers in DOD--served in acquisition positions. By fiscal 
year 2007, DOD had only 73 general officers serving in such 
positions--despite the fact that DOD's acquisition spending had 
almost doubled in the interim.
    Without increasing the number of general officers serving 
in these positions, DOD is unlikely to reverse the ongoing 
decline in its acquisition workforce and revitalize its 
acquisition and contracting practices. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the military 
departments, and the chiefs of staff to significantly increase 
the number of general officers serving in acquisition and 
contracting positions in the near future.
Clarification of joint duty requirements for promotion to general or 
        flag grades (sec. 503)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 619a of title 10, United States Code, to provide that 
with certain exceptions, an officer must be designated as a 
joint qualified officer, rather than a joint specialty officer, 
in accordance with section 661 of title 10, United States Code, 
before being eligible for promotion to general or flag officer.
Modification of authorities on length of joint duty assignments (sec. 
        504)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 664 of title 10, United States Code, to align 
prescribed joint duty assignment lengths with the joint 
qualification system implemented pursuant to section 516 of the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007 (Public Law 109-364), to take into account multiple joint 
experiences in satisfying joint duty assignment requirements.
Technical and conforming amendments relating to modification of joint 
        specialty requirements (sec. 505)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical and conforming amendments to sections 663, 665, and 
667 of title 10, United States Code, to replace references to 
joint specialty officers with officers designated as joint 
qualified officers.

Eligibility of reserve officers to serve on boards of inquiry for 
        separation of regular officers for substandard performance and 
        other reasons (sec. 506)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1187 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
reserve officers to serve as members of boards of inquiry 
convened to consider whether regular officers should be 
retained on active duty. This implements a recommendation of 
the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves regarding 
elimination of policies which unnecessarily distinguish reserve 
component personnel from their active-duty counterparts and 
thereby impede full integration.

Modification of authority on Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of 
        the Marine Corps (sec. 507)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 5046 and 525 of title 10, United States Code, to 
require that an officer, while serving as the Staff Judge 
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, shall serve in 
the grade of major general. The provision would also exclude an 
officer serving in this grade and position from the limitation 
on the authorized number of officers serving in grades above 
brigadier general in the Marine Corps.

Increase in number of permanent professors at the United States Air 
        Force Academy (sec. 508)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 9331 of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 
21 to 25 the number of permanent professors at the Air Force 
Academy.

Service creditable toward retirement for thirty years or more of 
        service of regular warrant officers other than regular Army 
        warrant officers (sec. 509)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1305 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
retirement of a regular warrant officer of the Navy, Marine 
Corps, and Coast Guard 60 days after the date on which the 
officer completes 30 years of active service.

Modification of requirements for qualification for issuance of 
        posthumous commissions and warrants (sec. 510)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1521 and 1522 of title 10, United States Code, to 
replace the condition for a posthumous commission or warrant 
that the death be in the line of duty with a requirement for a 
certification by the secretary concerned that, at the time of 
death, the member was qualified for appointment to the next 
higher grade.

                 Subtitle B--Enlisted Personnel Policy


Increase in maximum period of reenlistment of regular members of the 
        armed forces (sec. 521)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 505(d) of title 10, United States Code, and section 
308(a) of title 37, United States Code, to increase from 6 to 8 
years the maximum period of reenlistment of regular members of 
the armed forces.

                Subtitle C--Reserve Component Management


Modification of limitations on authorized strengths of reserve general 
        and flag officers in active status (sec. 531)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 12004 of title 10, United States Code, to exclude from 
the limitations on the numbers of reserve general and flag 
officers in an active status those reserve general and flag 
officers serving in joint duty assignments. The number of 
reserve general and flag officers excluded could not exceed 20 
percent of the number of authorized flag and general officers 
authorized for the service concerned.

Extension to other reserve components of Army authority for deferral of 
        mandatory separation of military technicians (dual status) 
        until age 60 (sec. 532)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 10216(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
the Secretary of the Air Force to implement personnel policies 
that would allow a military technician (dual status) who 
continues to meet the requirements for dual status to continue 
to serve until the technician reaches age 60 and attains 
eligibility for an unreduced annuity. Currently, this 
requirement applies only to the Secretary of the Army.

Increase in mandatory retirement age for certain Reserve officers to 
        age 62 (sec. 533)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 12647 and 14702 of title 10, United States Code, to 
increase the mandatory retirement age from age 60 to age 62 for 
commissioned officers assigned to the Selective Service System 
or as property and fiscal officers; Army National Guard 
officers assigned to a headquarters or headquarters detachment 
of a State; and reserve officers of the Army or Air Force who 
are required to maintain membership in a Selected Reserve unit 
or organization as a condition of continued employment as a 
National Guard or reserve technician.

Authority for vacancy promotion of National Guard and Reserve officers 
        ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation 
        (sec. 534)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 14317 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
promotion of reserve component officers who are recommended for 
promotion to fill a position vacancy under section 14315 of 
title 10, United States Code, and who are ordered to active 
duty in support of a contingency operation.

Authority for retention of reserve component chaplains and medical 
        officers until age 68 (sec. 535)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 14703(b) of title 10, United States Code, and section 
324(a) of title 32, United States Code, to authorize reserve 
component chaplains and medical officers to be retained in an 
active status until the date on which the officer becomes 68 
years of age.

Modification of authorities on dual duty status of National Guard 
        officers (sec. 536)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 325 of title 32, United States Code, to authorize all 
National Guard officers, not just those in command of National 
Guard units, to retain their state status while serving on 
active duty when authorized by the President and with the 
consent of the Governor or the commanding general of the 
District of Columbia National Guard as applicable. The 
provision would also allow the consent or authorization to be 
given in advance for the purpose of establishing the succession 
of command of a unit.

Modification of matching fund requirements under National Guard Youth 
        Challenge Program (sec. 537)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 509(d) of title 32, United States Code, to clarify that 
the limitation on assistance provided by the Department of 
Defense to a State National Guard Youth Challenge Program may 
not be construed as a limitation on the amount of assistance 
that may be provided by other sources.

Report on collection of information on civilian skills of members of 
        the reserve components of the armed forces (sec. 538)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report by March 1, 2009, on 
the feasibility, uses, and cost effectiveness of collecting 
information about skills, qualifications, and professional 
certifications possessed by members of the reserve components.
    The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves 
recommended that the Department of Defense develop a 
standardized system for developing and maintaining a ``civilian 
skills database'' that is consistent with standardized database 
formats, such as that used by the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, to allow worldwide interoperability. The 
committee believes that collection of this information should 
be considered for inclusion in the Reserve Components Common 
Personnel Data System pursuant to Department of Defense 
Instruction 7730.54, dated March 31, 2008.

                   Subtitle D--Education and Training


Authority to prescribe the authorized strength of the United States 
        Naval Academy (sec. 551)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 6954 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that 
the authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen at the 
United States Naval Academy is 4,400 midshipmen or such lower 
number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy.

Tuition for attendance of certain individuals at the United States Air 
        Force Institute of Technology (sec. 552)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 9314(c) of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
United States Air Force Institute of Technology to charge 
tuition for instruction of civilians from the military 
departments, other components of the Department of Defense, and 
other federal agencies, and to use these funds to defray the 
costs of such instruction.

Increase in stipend for baccalaureate students in nursing or other 
        health professions under Health Professions Stipend Program 
        (sec. 553)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 16201 of title 10, United States Code, to equate the 
authority for the stipend paid to baccalaureate students in 
nursing or other health professions under the Health 
Professions Stipend Program for health care professionals in 
reserve components to the amount of the stipend paid to 
participants in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship 
Program under section 2121(d) of title 10, United States Code.

Clarification of discharge or release triggering delimiting period for 
        use of educational assistance benefit for reserve component 
        members supporting contingency operations and other operations 
        (sec. 554)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 16164 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that 
only service members who separate under honorable conditions 
are eligible to use the educational benefits in chapter 1607 of 
title 10, United States Code, for a period of 10 years after 
separation. The provision aligns eligibility under this section 
with the eligibility requirements for the post-separation use 
of educational benefits under chapter 30 of title 38, United 
States Code.

Payment by the service academies of certain expenses associated with 
        participation in activities fostering international cooperation 
        (sec. 555)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 101 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
superintendents of the United States Military Academy, the 
United States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force 
Academy, in the interest of international cooperation, to pay 
certain expenses of officers, students, and representatives of 
foreign countries visiting the service academy concerned.
    The provision would also authorize payment of per diem at a 
rate lower than the rate authorized by the Joint Federal Travel 
Regulations to United States Military Academy cadets, United 
States Air Force Academy cadets, or United States Naval Academy 
midshipmen who travel or study abroad in a program to enhance 
language skills or cultural understanding. The service 
academies' language and cultural immersion programs generally 
include cadets and midshipmen staying with families or living 
in university dormitories with some meals provided. This 
provision would authorize the academies to determine the 
appropriate amount of compensation for missed meals and 
incidentals under these circumstances.

           Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education Matters


Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 
        benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and 
        Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 561)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 
(OMDW), for continuation of the Department of Defense 
assistance program to local educational agencies that are 
impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military 
members and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. 
The committee also recommends authorization of $10.0 million in 
OMDW, for assistance to local educational agencies with 
significant changes in enrollment of military and civilian 
school-aged dependent children due to base closures, force 
structure changes, or force relocations.

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for 
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under 
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in 
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), 
for continuation of the Department of Defense's assistance to 
local educational agencies that benefit dependents with severe 
disabilities.

Transition of military dependent students among local educational 
        agencies (sec. 563)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 574(d) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), to 
require the Secretary of Defense to work collaboratively with 
the Secretary of Education in any efforts to ease the 
transition of military dependent students between Department of 
Defense dependent schools, schools of local educational 
agencies, and other schools. This provision would authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to use funds of the Department of Defense 
Education Activity for this purpose.

                 Subtitle F--Military Family Readiness 


Authority for education and training for military spouses pursuing 
        portable careers (sec. 571)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1784 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out programs to provide training 
and education to spouses of members of the armed forces on 
active duty who are pursuing portable careers.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


Department of Defense policy on the prevention of suicides by members 
        of the armed forces (sec. 581)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy designed 
to prevent suicide by members of the armed forces. The policy 
would ensure that investigations, analyses, and appropriate 
data collection occur across the military departments on the 
causes and factors surrounding suicides by members of the armed 
forces, and that information from those studies contributes to 
the development of effective strategies to educate members of 
the armed forces in preventing suicides and suicide attempts. 
The committee believes that uniform data collection by the 
military services will facilitate analysis of events in the 
aggregate for trends and patterns that may lead to improved 
strategies to prevent suicides and suicide attempts.
    The committee is particularly concerned about the increase 
in the rate of suicide within the United States Army from 2004 
through 2007, which is higher than historic Army rates. Active 
Army suicide rates have doubled from 9.8 per 100,000 in 2001 to 
19.7 per 100,000 in 2007. Suicide attempts resulting in medical 
evacuation or hospitalization have also increased from 263 in 
2004 to 948 in 2006. A general officer steering committee 
appointed to address the rise in suicides in the Army has 
reaffirmed and expanded the Army's suicide prevention 
strategies.
    To take advantage of any new developments in suicide 
prevention, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
initiate a review of the Army's suicide prevention program. 
This review shall include participation by non-Department of 
Defense and non-Department of Veterans Affairs experts on 
suicide prevention. The Secretary shall report to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
Representatives no later than September 1, 2008 on the results 
of this review. The report shall include the findings and 
recommendations of the review and a description of any changes 
or modifications to the Army suicide prevention program made as 
a result of the review.

Relief for losses incurred as a result of certain injustices or errors 
        of the Department of Defense (sec. 582)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 127e to title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military 
departments to provide relief to a member or former member of 
the armed forces who, in the determination of the secretary 
concerned, has suffered imprisonment pursuant to a court-
martial conviction as a result of an injustice or error on the 
part of the Department of Defense or any of its employees 
acting in their official capacity. The relief provided may 
include the payment of moneys, including interest, from funds 
available for emergency and extraordinary expenses under 
section 127 of title 10, United States Code.

Paternity leave for members of the armed forces (sec. 583)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize up to 
21 days of leave for a male service member whose spouse gives 
birth to a child. The leave would be in addition to any other 
leave to which the service member is entitled.

Enhancement of authorities on participation of members of the armed 
        forces in international sports competitions (sec. 584)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 717 of title 10, United States Code, to include the 
Military World Games as an international sports competition in 
which members of the armed forces may be authorized to 
participate. The provision would increase the maximum amounts 
from $3.0 million to $6.0 million that the Secretary of Defense 
may apportion among the military departments, and from $100,000 
to $200,000 for the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland 
Security, that may be spent during each successive 4-year 
period beginning on October 1, 2008, for participation in 
certain international sports competitions. The provision would 
also require the Secretary to submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 
later than October 1, 2009, a report setting forth a 
comprehensive plan for participation in and planning for 
hosting of international sports activities, competitions, and 
events.
    The committee believes that participation by military 
members in and Department of Defense support of international 
sports competitions is important and should be funded through 
appropriated funds rather than non-appropriated sources needed 
for morale, welfare, and recreation activities. The events 
sponsored by the International Military Sports Council (CISM) 
such as the Military World Games, in particular, also serve as 
security cooperation activities that foster military-to-
military contact and promote Western values. The Department, 
however, must comprehensively set forth its plan for funding 
and supporting the various international sports competitions in 
which service members participate.

Pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance retention of members of 
        the armed forces (sec. 585)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the secretaries of the military departments to conduct pilot 
programs to evaluate the need for more flexibility in career 
patterns of a limited number of active-duty officers and 
enlisted members. Under the pilot programs, selected service 
members would leave active duty for a period of up to 3 years, 
and then return to active duty in the same grade and years of 
service that they held at the time they were inactivated. Time 
spent while inactivated would not count toward retirement 
eligibility, computation of retired pay, or years of service. 
The authority to conduct pilot programs under this authority 
would commence January 1, 2009 and end December 31, 2014. The 
provision would require the secretaries of the military 
departments to submit interim reports in 2010 and 2012. The 
Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a final report 
no later than March 1, 2015 evaluating all the pilot programs 
conducted under this authority.

Prohibition on interference in independent legal advice by the Legal 
        Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (sec. 586)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 156(d) of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit any 
officer or employee of the Department of Defense from 
interfering with the ability of the Legal Counsel to the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to give independent legal 
advice to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff.

                       Items of Special Interest


Enhancing family support for the National Guard and reserve

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense and the 
secretaries of the military departments for the increased 
priority for family support programs presented in testimony in 
review of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2009. 
In particular, the Army would devote $1.5 billion for family 
support programs in fiscal year 2009, with the goal of better 
meeting family needs for child care, youth programs, and 
community recreation.
    The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of 
support for family members of the National Guard and reserve, 
especially for the families of the nearly 500,000 members who 
have deployed. The final report of the Commission on the 
National Guard and Reserves (January 2008) correctly focused on 
identifying the needs and gaps in service to reserve component 
family members.
    The committee applauds the Department of Defense's efforts 
to implement the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program authorized 
in section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) in all States during 
fiscal year 2009. The committee believes that the Department 
should increase efforts to publicize the Military OneSource 
program, a valuable but under-utilized resource which can help 
overcome the challenge of geographic isolation for families of 
the National Guard and reserve. The committee also urges the 
Secretary to promote partnerships among the Departments of 
Defense and Veterans Affairs and State and local community 
mental health programs in order to increase access for Guard 
and reserve members and their families to quality mental health 
services.
    The committee notes that for fiscal year 2009, as in 
previous years, the Department continues to rely on 
supplemental appropriations for a significant portion of the 
funding of critical family support programs, including 
counseling and child care. The committee reiterates its belief 
that family support programs are enduring requirements for the 
all volunteer force, and its expectation that family support 
programs will be fully integrated into the Department's annual 
budget process and future-years defense plan.

Financial literacy

    The committee recognizes that our nation's military 
personnel and their families can face financial challenges as a 
result of the demands of service, including deployments 
overseas. To add to this, service members and their families 
have been the target of aggressive predatory lending practices.
    Recent press reports have highlighted the fact that 
financial readiness is increasingly becoming an issue for many 
military families. In addition, military families themselves 
have identified increased financial education and literacy as a 
need.
    The committee believes that early education on fiscal 
responsibility may help younger generations of military family 
members avoid financial stress. Therefore, the committee 
encourages the Department of Defense Education Activity to 
develop a comprehensive, research-based financial literacy 
curriculum for grades kindergarten through 12.

Legislative fellows from the Department of Defense

    The Secretary of Defense has recently directed an increase 
in the number of legislative fellows from 26 to 100 by 2009 and 
extended offers for their assignment to the members assigned to 
14 congressional committees. This sudden growth in the number 
of legislative fellows must be implemented in a manner that 
takes into account the needs of the Department of Defense and 
the professional development needs of each officer selected. 
The committee notes that, while a legislative fellowship can be 
a valuable experience, officer availability for professional 
development opportunities outside the Department is already 
severely compressed to meet a growing list of institutional 
requirements and for rotational forces in all services. In the 
case of fellows, this is compounded by the requirement for 
follow-on utilization assignments as required by controlling 
Department of Defense regulations.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to perform a 
critical review of how the legislative fellowship program is 
organized, resourced, managed, and controlled within the 
Department of Defense and the military departments. The 
Secretary should articulate with greater clarity the 
institutional and professional development goals and objectives 
of the legislative fellows program. The Secretary should also 
establish how the program will be evaluated in meeting these 
goals and objectives. Given competing demands on officer 
manpower, the Secretary should establish a coherent policy to 
ensure that the officers selected for a legislative fellowship 
opportunity are career-oriented officers whose experience as a 
fellow will be utilized appropriately in their future military 
assignments.
    The Secretary's review should specify the numbers of 
fellows by military department who will be assigned each year, 
and the billets and positions in the Department of Defense and 
military departments for which a legislative fellowship 
assignment is a prerequisite or provides essential professional 
development. Additionally, the review shall provide a plan 
setting forth the criteria for selection, assignment, pre-
fellowship training, monitoring and evaluation of performance, 
and post-fellowship assignments. The review should discuss the 
methods that will be used to ensure that officers who are 
assigned as legislative fellows will be assigned to utilization 
tours that are fully consistent with their competitive 
categories and career progression requirements. The Secretary 
shall report the results of this review to the congressional 
defense committees not later than May 1, 2009.

Premium conversion and flexible spending account options for service 
        members

    The Senate report accompanying S. 1042 (S. Rept. 109-69) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
contained a requirement directing the Secretary of Defense to 
provide to the congressional defense committees a plan to 
evaluate and implement premium conversion and flexible spending 
account programs for uniformed service members. On May 15, 
2007, the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted its report, 
concluding that ``DOD must determine how PC/FSA benefit 
programs under a cafeteria plan might work best for each 
component, and whether, when, and how to offer those 
programs.'' The report recognized that there were no statutory 
barriers to implementation of these programs, but failed to 
commit to providing these programs to service members. Premium 
conversion and flexible spending account programs remain 
unavailable to service members, though they are available to 
federal employees, and are widely available in the civilian 
sector. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by July 
1, 2008 detailing the Department's plan to implement these 
programs for both active-duty and Selected Reserve members, or 
explaining the Department's decision not to offer these 
programs in spite of the advantages they offer.
    The committee continues to believe that active-duty members 
and Selected Reserve members should be able to use premium 
conversion to pay dental insurance premiums, and Selected 
Reserve personnel should be able to use it to pay TRICARE 
Reserve Select premiums. The committee also continues to 
believe that active-duty and Selected Reserve members should 
have access to flexible spending account options that allow 
them to pay for out-of-pocket medical and dental expenses, 
dependent care expenses, and child care services.

Report on implementation of Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
Representatives by October 1, 2008, a status report on the 
implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. The 
report shall include a description, by State, of 
accomplishments for fiscal year 2008, and those planned for 
fiscal year 2009. The report shall also include an 
identification of current and future resource requirements, 
including personnel, necessary to implement and execute the 
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, as well as a plan for full 
implementation and oversight of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 
Program in all States.
    The committee expects that the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness, serving as Executive Agent, will 
ensure that the program is carried out based on uniform program 
requirements throughout the United States, and in a manner that 
equitably serves both National Guard and reserve personnel as 
required by section 582 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public law 110-181).

Secretary of Defense review of deferment from deployment policy 
        following birth of a child

    Current Department of Defense (DOD) policy governing 
military personnel assignments requires that for a minimum of 4 
months after the birth of a child, ``a military mother shall be 
deferred from assignment to a dependent-restricted overseas 
tour or an unaccompanied overseas tour when concurrent travel 
is denied'' (Department of Defense Instruction 1315.18). The 
secretary of the military department, however, may extend the 
deferment based on force readiness needs. Army and Air Force 
policies provide for the minimum 4-month deferment from 
deployment. The Marine Corps currently defers deployment for 6 
months, and the Navy for 1 year.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
review of policies concerning deferment from deployment of 
service members following the birth of a child. The review 
shall include an assessment of the impact of service policies 
on military readiness, including recruitment and retention of 
female service members, and the desirability of a uniform 
policy for all military services. The review shall take into 
account such factors as differing conditions during deployment 
and the manpower requirements of each service, the medical and 
psychological readiness of military members to deploy, policies 
regarding family care plans, and policies responding to 
personal hardship following childbirth, such as a newborn with 
special medical treatment needs.
    In conducting the review, the Secretary shall consult with 
public and private sector experts, such as the U.S. Health 
Resources and Services Administration, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians, 
to ensure that Department of Defense assignment policies for 
female service members following childbirth are informed by the 
most current scientific and clinical expertise regarding the 
well-being of new mothers and infants.
    The committee directs the Secretary to report to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives on the results of this review by May 1, 2009. 
The report shall describe changes to DOD or service policies as 
a result of the review.
          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Fiscal year 2009 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pay raise for members of the uniformed services of 3.9 percent, 
0.5 percent above the pay raise recommended in the budget 
request, to become effective on January 1, 2009.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for Reserve 
        forces (sec. 611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment 
bonus; the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus; 
the 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.
Extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care 
        professionals (sec. 612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate 
accession bonus; the repayment of education loans for certain 
health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve; the 
accession bonus for registered nurses; incentive special pay 
for nurse anesthetists; special pay for Selected Reserve health 
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.
Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers 
        (sec. 613)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending their period of active service; 
the nuclear career accession bonus; and the nuclear career 
annual incentive bonus.
Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and 
        special pays (sec. 614)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention 
bonus; assignment incentive pay; the reenlistment bonus for 
active members; the enlistment bonus; 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; the 
retention bonus for members with critical military skills or 
assigned to high priority units; and income replacement for 
reserve members experiencing extended and frequent 
mobilizations.
Extension of authorities relating to payment of referral bonuses (sec. 
        615)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the health professions referral 
bonus and the Army referral bonus under sections 1030 and 3252 
of title 10, United States Code, respectively.
Permanent extension of prohibition on charges for meals received at 
        military treatment facilities by members receiving continuous 
        care (sec. 616)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 402 of title 37, United States Code, to make permanent 
the prohibition on charges for meals received at military 
treatment facilities by members receiving continuous care.

Accession and retention bonuses for the recruitment and retention of 
        psychologists for the armed forces (sec. 617)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 301f to title 37, United States Code, authorizing a 
multiyear retention bonus for uniformed psychologists in the 
maximum amount of $25,000 per year for up to 4 years. The 
provision would also add a new section 302m to title 37, United 
States Code, authorizing an accession bonus for uniformed 
psychologists of up to $400,000 for an active-duty commitment 
of at least 4 years.
    The Report of the Department of Defense Task Force on 
Mental Health found that the number of active-duty 
psychologists is insufficient and likely to decrease further 
without substantial intervention. According to the report, data 
from post-deployment health reassessments show that 38 percent 
of soldiers and 31 percent of marines report psychological 
problems. These bonuses, in conjunction with existing benefits, 
are intended to help overcome critical shortages in the number 
of uniformed psychologists.

Authority for extension of maximum length of service agreements for 
        special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of 
        active service (sec. 618)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 312 of title 37, United States Code, to eliminate the 
3, 4, and 5 year options currently in law, and require only 
that the period of continuation be at least 3 years with the 
objective of providing more flexibility in administering the 
nuclear officer continuation pay.

Incentive pay for members of precommissioning programs pursuing foreign 
        language proficiency (sec. 619)

    The committee recommends a provision that would create a 
new section 316a of title 37, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to pay incentive pay to an individual 
pursuing foreign language proficiency while enrolled in the 
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps or the Marine Corps 
Platoon Leaders Class. The individual must participate in an 
approved language immersion program, study abroad, or academic 
course that involves instruction in a foreign language of 
strategic interest to the Department of Defense. The incentive 
pay may not exceed $3,000 per year per individual. The 
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to report 
to the Office of Management and Budget and the congressional 
defense committees by January 1, 2010, and annually thereafter, 
on the payment of incentive pay under this section.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


Shipment of family pets during evacuation of personnel (sec. 631)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 406 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize 
transportation, including the payment of shipment and 
quarantine costs, of two household pets in cases of evacuation 
from a permanent station located in a foreign area.

Special weight allowance for transportation of professional books and 
        equipment for spouses (sec. 632)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 406 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize a 
special weight allowance of up to an additional 500 pounds for 
professional books and equipment belonging to the spouses of 
service members ordered to make a change of permanent station. 
The provision would take effect October 1, 2009.

Travel and transportation allowances for members of the reserve 
        components of the armed forces on leave for suspension of 
        training (sec. 633)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 411k to title 37, United States Code, to authorize 
travel and transportation allowances for service members on 
active duty for more than 30 days to travel from a temporary 
duty station back to their permanent duty station and back 
again during times when training is suspended at the temporary 
duty station for a period of 5 days or more.

             Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits


Presentation of burial flag to the surviving spouse and children of 
        members of the armed forces who die in service (sec. 641)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1482 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
presentation of a burial flag to the surviving spouse of a 
deceased service member when the surviving spouse is not 
otherwise entitled to a flag as the person designated to direct 
the disposition of the remains. The provision would also 
authorize the presentation of a burial flag to each child of a 
deceased service member.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Separation pay, transitional health care, and transitional commissary 
        and exchange benefits for members of the armed forces separated 
        under surviving son or daughter policy (sec. 651)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
service members separated under the Department of Defense 
surviving son or daughter policy with separation pay under 
section 1174 of title 10, United States Code; transitional 
health care under section 1145 of title 10, United States Code; 
and transitional commissary and exchange benefits under section 
1146 of title 10, United States Code.

                       Items of Special Interest


Aviation career incentive pay

    The committee has received reports of officers qualified 
for aviation service missing their ``gate'' thresholds for 
continued eligibility for receipt of aviation career incentive 
pay (ACIP) due to non-flying assignments, including ``in lieu 
of'' or individual augmentee assignments in Operations Enduring 
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The committee directs the Secretary 
of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy to review their 
ACIP programs, their assignment of officers qualified for 
aviation service to non-flying duty assignments, and the effect 
of these assignments on these officers' continued eligibility 
for ACIP. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 
and the Secretary of the Navy to report to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
by March 1, 2009 on the results of this review.

Travel allowances for family of service members with serious 
        psychiatric conditions

    The committee notes that section 411h of title 37, United 
States Code, authorizes the secretaries of the military 
departments to pay travel and transportation allowances for 
family members of service members who are seriously injured, 
seriously ill, or in a situation of imminent death when the 
attending physician or surgeon and the commander or head of the 
military medical facility concerned determine that the family's 
presence may contribute to the service member's health and 
welfare.
    The committee strongly believes that service members who 
suffer from serious psychiatric conditions meet the seriously 
injured or seriously ill threshold under section 411h of title 
37, United States Code, and that family members of such service 
members should be eligible for travel and transportation 
allowances in accordance with that section. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional 
defense committees by June 1, 2008 on the Department of Defense 
policies regarding the eligibility of family members of such 
service members to receive travel and transportation allowances 
under that section.
                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                      Subtitle A--TRICARE Program

Calculation of monthly premiums for coverage under TRICARE Reserve 
        Select after 2008 (sec. 701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to base the actuarial calculation of the 
amount of monthly premiums paid by members of the Selected 
Reserve for health care coverage under the TRICARE Reserve 
Select (TRS) program on the reported costs of providing 
benefits. For 2009, the premium amount would be based on the 
reported program costs for 2006 and 2007. For each year after 
2009, the premium amount would be based on the actual cost of 
providing benefits during calendar years preceding that year.
    The committee is concerned that, according to a Government 
Accountability Office review of the Department of Defense's 
cost of implementing the TRS program for members of the Guard 
and reserve required by the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
``The premium for individual coverage under tier 1 was 72 
percent higher than the average cost per plan of providing 
benefits through the program. Similarly, the premium for family 
coverage under tier 1 was 45 percent higher than the average 
cost per plan of providing benefits.''
    The provision reflects the Comptroller General's 
recommendation that the Department should stop basing TRS 
premium adjustments only on the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program's Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan, and use 
instead the reported costs of providing benefits when adjusting 
premiums in the future.
    The committee is also concerned that learning how to use 
TRICARE is difficult for newly eligible beneficiaries, 
especially those in the reserve components. The committee 
agrees with the recommendation in the January 2008 report of 
the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves that 
information materials about TRICARE need to be redesigned, in 
both print and electronic format, to be more user-friendly, 
especially for first time users. The committee directs that the 
Secretary of Defense report to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives by February 1, 
2009 on programs and plans to achieve such improvements during 
fiscal year 2009.

               Subtitle B--Other Health Care Authorities

Enhancement of medical and dental readiness of members of the armed 
        forces (sec. 711)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1074a(d)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
the secretary of each military department to provide to members 
of the Selected Reserve who are assigned to units scheduled for 
deployment within 75 days after mobilization annual medical 
screenings, a full physical examination for members who are 
over the age of 40 every 2 years, and annual dental screenings 
and dental care required to ensure that a member meets the 
dental standards required for deployment. These services are to 
be provided at no cost to the member. The provision would also 
authorize the secretaries concerned to provide the same 
services to other members of the Selected Reserve and to a 
member of the Individual Ready Reserve with a deployment 
responsibility, if those services are necessary to ensure that 
members meet applicable standards of medical and dental 
readiness.
    The committee notes that section 1074a(f) of title 10, 
United States Code, authorizes the secretaries of the military 
departments to provide any medical and dental screening and 
care necessary to meet applicable medical and dental standards 
for deployment to members of the Ready Reserve who have been 
notified that they will be called or ordered to active duty for 
a period of more than 30 days. The provision would clarify that 
operation and maintenance funds available to the reserve 
components may be used to achieve these goals.
    The provision would also amend section 1076a(e) of title 
10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense 
to waive, in whole or in part, during a time of national 
emergency, the requirement for members of the Selected Reserve 
enrolled in the TRICARE dental insurance program to pay 
copayments for restorative care necessary to meet dental 
readiness standards, in order to facilitate readiness of a unit 
or individual scheduled for deployment.
    The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report by March 1, 2009 on the policies and 
procedures to ensure medical and dental readiness of members of 
the armed forces, including a description of the manner in 
which each military department applies such standards with 
respect to performance evaluation and promotion.
    The committee believes that the medical and dental 
readiness of the reserve components must be strengthened in 
order to support their increasing operational roles. Of 
particular concern is the lack of dental readiness of the 
reserve components. According to the Department of Defense, in 
the first quarter of 2008, 57 percent of the Army National 
Guard and 50 percent of the Army Reserve members were dental 
class III or IV, and thus would not meet deployability 
standards, compared with 10 percent of the Navy Reserve, 11 
percent of the Air National Guard, 15 percent of the Air Force 
Reserve, 22 percent of the Marine Corps Reserve, and 26 percent 
of the Coast Guard Reserve.
    The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has 
established an expanded Reserve Health Readiness Program to 
help meet these needs, but believes that more needs to be done. 
The provision is intended to clarify the committee's intent 
that funds available to the reserve components for operation 
and maintenance may be used for the purpose of improving 
medical readiness, and to underscore the committee's belief 
that individuals and commanders should be held accountable for 
meeting all applicable medical and dental readiness standards.
Additional authority for studies and demonstration projects relating to 
        delivery of health and medical care (sec. 712)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1092(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct additional studies and 
demonstrations relating to the delivery of health and medical 
care, which may include:
          (1) projects to provide awards and incentives to 
        TRICARE covered service members and beneficiaries who 
        obtain certain health promotion and disease prevention 
        health care services;
          (2) projects to provide awards and incentives to 
        individual health care professionals to encourage 
        improved quality and effectiveness of health care 
        services;
          (3) projects to improve the medical and dental 
        readiness of the reserve components; and
          (4) projects to improve the continuity of health care 
        services for family members of mobilized members of the 
        reserve components, including payment of a stipend for 
        continuation of employer-provided health coverage.
Travel for anesthesia services for childbirth for dependents of members 
        assigned to very remote locations outside the continental 
        United States (sec. 713)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1040(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to pay travel expenses for a dependent 
of a service member assigned to a very remote location outside 
the continental United States who requires or elects anesthesia 
services for childbirth to a location in the United States.
    Under current law, payment of travel expenses is authorized 
for required medical attention that is not available in the 
locality in order to travel to the nearest medical facility in 
which adequate medical care is available. The provision would 
clarify that anesthesia services for childbirth should be 
included in the scope of required medical attention.

                 Subtitle C--Other Health Care Matters


  Repeal of prohibition on conversion of military medical and dental 
     positions to civilian medical and dental positions (sec. 721)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
subsection (a) of section 721 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
which prohibits the military departments from converting any 
military medical or dental position to a civilian medical or 
dental position through September 30, 2012. The provision would 
also restore subsections (a) and (b) of section 742 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), which require certification by the 
secretary of a military department that any planned conversion 
will not increase the cost or decrease the quality of care or 
access to military health care, and requires a review by the 
Comptroller General of these certifications.
    The Department of Defense has informed the committee that 
the prohibition ``. . . has created chaos in planned personnel 
actions in FY 2008, essentially guaranteeing a detrimental 
impact on medical staffing levels and access to care . . .'' 
The provision recommended by the committee would repeal this 
prohibition.
    However, the committee continues to believe that the 
military departments did not adequately address the 
certification requirements contained in section 742 of Public 
Law 109-364 when it was in effect. The committee remains 
concerned that planned conversions may increase costs, decrease 
access to care, decrease quality of care, or negatively impact 
recruitment and retention of military personnel. Therefore, the 
provision would restore this certification requirement.
    In planning any future conversions of military medical or 
dental positions to civilian medical or dental positions, the 
committee expects the military departments to fully assess all 
aspects of the conversions, including those concerns listed 
above. The committee also expects the departments to supply 
these certifications to the committee in accordance with 
applicable deadlines.
    The language in subsection (b) of section 721 of Public Law 
110-181 requiring the military departments to restore any 
positions converted between October 1, 2004, and September 30, 
2008 that have not yet been filled by a civilian back to 
military positions remains in effect.

                       Items of Special Interest


Chiropractic care for members of the armed forces

    Section 702 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) 
required the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to provide 
chiropractic health care services and benefits for all members 
of the armed forces on active duty. Although all active-duty 
service members are eligible for this benefit, services are 
available only at designated military treatment facilities: 17 
medical facilities in the Army, 13 in the Navy, and 19 in the 
Air Force. Services are not available to members who are 
deployed or assigned to any overseas location other than Alaska 
and Hawaii.
    The committee is concerned that the extreme physical 
demands of military service resulting from Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, compounded by injuries 
which have been incurred, may have increased the requirement 
for chiropractic services for service members, including those 
assigned to overseas locations. A September 2005 report by the 
Comptroller General found that although the Department of 
Defense had implemented the chiropractic benefit, the 
Department had not monitored whether the benefit meets current 
or future demand from active-duty personnel.
    In response to the increased physical demands on our 
service members, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a study to reassess the requirement for chiropractic 
services for members on active duty. The committee directs that 
the study should include, but not be limited to, surveys of 
service members, unit commanders, and medical treatment 
facility personnel, and a review of injury data for active-duty 
service members since 2001. In particular, the surveys and 
assessment shall include the needs of members assigned to units 
outside of the continental United States. The Secretary shall 
report the results of the study to congressional defense 
committees by June 1, 2009.

Comptroller General study on medical personnel requirements, 
        shortfalls, and actions needed to resolve medical personnel 
        shortages

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
continues to experience significant shortfalls in physician, 
dentist, nurse, and other allied health specialties. With the 
demand for military medical care rising, due to ongoing 
contingency operations, restructuring of forces, and the 
planned growth of the Army and Marine Corps, medical shortfalls 
must be resolved. Military and civilian health care 
professionals are needed to support contingency operations, and 
provide medical training, research, and care for military 
families, retirees, and their families.
    A report by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs in May 2007, ``Department of Defense Military Medical 
Recruiting and Retention,'' confirmed that significant 
shortfalls exist throughout the military medical departments, 
and committed to working with the military departments to 
identify funding for accession bonuses and special pay and 
incentive authorities enhanced in the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364). The report also described the initiation of a human 
capital management plan for the military health system. In the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), Congress enhanced authorities for the hiring of 
civilian health care professionals by utilizing compensation 
authorities available to the Department of Veterans Affairs 
under title 38, United States Code.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a 
study of the medical and dental personnel requirements of the 
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, including their 
reserve components, in order to meet their medical mission in 
support of contingency operations, deliver high quality health 
care to eligible beneficiaries, and support necessary training 
and research. The Comptroller General shall evaluate medical 
workforce planning efforts throughout the Department of Defense 
to determine those medical specialty areas that have 
experienced the largest gaps between identified needs and fill 
rates; challenges that hinder the achievement of medical 
personnel goals, both military and civilian; and the plans of 
each military department and the Department of Defense to 
resolve medical personnel shortfalls.
    The Comptroller General shall submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by April 1, 2009 containing 
the results of the study and such recommendations as the 
Comptroller General deems appropriate.

Mental health and traumatic brain injury

    The committee applauds the work of Army medical department 
behavioral health researchers who continue their study of the 
mental health needs of soldiers and marines in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Like the Mental Health 
Advisory Team (MHAT) studies which have preceded it, the MHAT 
V, conducted in October and November 2007, brought to light 
important findings about the mental health needs of deployed 
forces, in particular the high risk factors associated with 
multiple and lengthy deployments. Soldiers reported significant 
barriers in access to mental health care, including an 
insufficient number of behavioral health providers. Several 
studies, including the June 2007 report of the Department of 
Defense Task Force on Mental Health, ``An Achievable Vision,'' 
have called for more effective behavioral health treatment and 
care for service members and their families across a broad 
continuum of care, including prevention, intervention, and 
treatment. Though psychological injuries are not new to 
warfare, most experts believe that the need for behavioral 
health services in the future will increase, especially as 
research reveals more about clinical approaches to mental 
health conditions and traumatic brain injury.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 
provisions which would improve incentives to recruit and retain 
mental health providers in the military, as well as streamline 
the hiring of civilian behavioral health providers. The 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to work with the 
military departments to identify funding needed to take full 
advantage of improved recruiting and retention incentives to 
increase the supply of behavioral health professionals who 
support members of the armed forces and their families.

Modification of security clearance questionnaire to reduce stigma for 
        seeking mental health care

    The Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health 
reported in June 2007 that the stigma associated with seeking 
mental health care in the military ``represents a critical 
failure of the community that prevents service members and 
their families from getting the help they need when they need 
it most. Further, stigma is of particular concern in the 
military because of the degree to which military members may 
bear responsibility for lives beyond their own.'' The Task 
Force identified concerns by service members that self-
identification relating to mental health care would impede 
their careers or efforts to obtain a security clearance and 
recommended that the Department of Defense ``work to clarify 
those mental health conditions that must be reported because 
they are indicative of defects in judgment, reliability, or 
emotional stability that are potentially disqualifying or raise 
significant security concerns.''
    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for 
revising the Department of Defense Standard Form 86 (SF86) 
questionnaire for national security positions regarding mental 
and emotional health to implement the recommendation of the 
Task Force. In a memorandum dated April 18, 2008, the Secretary 
of Defense informed all Department of Defense components that 
the Department had ``successfully advocated a revision to 
Question 21 on the SF86 regarding mental and emotional 
health,'' and directed the following revised question 21 be 
used until the Office of Personnel and Management publishes an 
updated SF86:

    Mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason 
to revoke or deny a clearance.
    In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health care 
professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition 
or were you hospitalized for such a condition? Answer `No' if 
the counseling was for any of the following reasons and was not 
court-ordered:
           Strictly marital, family, grief not related 
        to violence by you; or
           Strictly related to adjustments from service 
        in a military combat environment.

    The committee also commends the Under Secretaries of 
Defense for Intelligence and Personnel and Readiness for their 
affirmation in a memorandum to all individuals completing the 
SF86 that ``Seeking professional care for these mental health 
issues should not be perceived to jeopardize an individual's 
security clearance. On the contrary, failure to seek care 
actually increases the likelihood that psychological distress 
could escalate to a more serious mental condition, which could 
preclude an individual from performing sensitive duties.''
    By advocating and achieving this long overdue change, the 
Secretaries have fulfilled the responsibilities that all 
leaders bear to reduce the stigma associated with seeking 
mental health care.

Organ and tissue donor program

    The committee is pleased that it is Department of Defense 
(DOD) policy to encourage all DOD beneficiaries to donate 
organs and tissue. Information about organ and tissue donation 
is provided to officer candidates during initial training and 
to new recruits after completion of basic training and before 
arrival at their first duty station. All members of the armed 
forces have recurring opportunities to elect to be organ or 
tissue donors while serving and upon retirement from military 
service. The committee recommends that the Department continue 
efforts to encourage military personnel and their families to 
become organ donors.
    The military health system participates in the National 
Organ Procurement and Transportation Network to facilitate and 
coordinate the donation of organs and tissues, the recovery of 
donated organs and tissues, and the matching of donors and 
recipients. All inpatient military treatment facilities are 
required to maintain a Memorandum of Understanding, in 
coordination with military transplant centers and local organ 
procurement organizations, to provide organ and tissue 
procurement services.
    DOD regulations require that an individual's election to be 
an organ or tissue donor be recorded in medical information 
systems, personnel data systems, and on the individual's DOD-
issued identification card. The committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives, no later than March 1, 
2009, on the feasibility of including an individual's election 
to be an organ or tissue donor on his or her military 
identification tags.
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

 Subtitle A--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

Inclusion of major subprograms to major defense acquisition programs 
        under acquisition reporting requirements (sec. 801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to designate as major subprograms of a 
major defense acquisition program (MDAP) two or more categories 
of end items to be delivered under the MDAP that differ 
significantly from each other in form and function. If the 
Secretary chooses to designate major subprograms under this 
provision, program acquisition unit costs and procurement unit 
costs would be reported to Congress for each of the major 
subprograms, rather than for the MDAP as a whole. Other key 
information would be reported to Congress both for the MDAP as 
a whole and for each of the major subprograms.
    The underlying assumption for unit cost reporting is that 
the quantity of items to be provided is relatively uniform in 
terms of cost and functionality. The committee recognizes that 
such uniformity may not be present in the case of a ``system of 
systems,'' such as the Future Combat Systems and the Ballistic 
Missile Defense System, which includes multiple end items that 
differ significantly from each other in form and function. The 
provision recommended by the committee would authorize the 
Secretary to break the MDAP into major subprograms only in such 
cases, to ensure the rational and consistent reporting of unit 
costs. The committee notes that this authority does not apply 
to multiple variants of a single system.
Inclusion of certain major information technology investments in 
        acquisition oversight authorities for Major Automated 
        Information System programs (sec. 802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 144A of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Department of Defense to extend reporting requirements for 
information technology acquisitions to cover both Major 
Automated Information System (MAIS) programs and other major 
information technology investments. Under current law, these 
reporting requirements apply only to MAIS programs.
Configuration steering boards for cost control under major defense 
        acquisition programs (sec. 803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
secretaries of the military departments to establish 
configuration steering boards (CSBs) to control costs on major 
defense acquisition programs. CSBs would be responsible for 
reviewing any proposed changes to program requirements or 
system configuration that could have the potential to adversely 
impact program cost or schedule and for recommending changes 
that have the potential to improve program cost or schedule in 
a manner consistent with program objectives. The committee 
expects any CSB decisions with regard to program requirements 
pursuant to subsection (c)(2) of this provision to be signed 
personally by the Chairman of the CSB.
    In its March 2008 report on selected weapon programs, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that changes in 
program requirements often have a significant adverse impact on 
cost and schedule. According to GAO:

          Unsettled requirements in acquisition programs can 
        create significant turbulence. Sixty-three percent of 
        the programs we received data from had requirement 
        changes after system development began. These programs 
        encountered cost increases of 72 percent, while costs 
        grew by 11 percent among those programs that did not 
        change requirements.

    On July 30, 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics directed the secretaries 
of the military departments to address this problem by 
establishing CSBs to control requirements. The Under 
Secretary's memorandum states that:

          The CSBs will review all requirements changes and any 
        significant technical configuration changes which have 
        the potential to result in cost and schedule impacts to 
        the program. Such changes will generally be rejected, 
        deferring them to future blocks or increments. Changes 
        may not be approved unless funds are identified and 
        schedule impacts are mitigated.

    The committee understands that the implementation of CSBs 
by the military departments has been uneven. By 
institutionalizing the CSB process, the provision recommended 
by the committee would ensure that CSBs become an effective 
mechanism for cost control on major defense acquisition 
programs.

             Subtitle B--Acquisition Policy and Management

Internal controls for procurements on behalf of the Department of 
        Defense by certain non-defense agencies (sec. 811)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct 
joint reviews with the inspectors general of certain non-
defense agencies to determine whether procurements conducted by 
the non-defense agencies on behalf of DOD have been conducted 
in compliance with defense procurement requirements.
    Section 802 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), 
section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), section 817 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), and section 801 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) 
contained similar requirements for joint audits.
    The provision recommended by the committee would modify 
requirements adopted in previous years by: (1) Deleting the 
requirement for follow-up audits of contracts awarded through 
the Department of the Treasury and the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration; and (2) adding a new requirement for 
joint audits of contracts awarded through the Department of 
Commerce and the Department of Energy.
Contingency contracting corps (sec. 812)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a contingency contracting 
corps to ensure that the Department of Defense has the 
capability, when needed, to support contingency contracting 
actions in a deployed environment.
Expedited review and validation of urgent requirements documents (sec. 
        813)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
military departments to ensure that urgent requirements 
documents developed by operational field commanders are 
presented to appropriate authorities for review and validation 
not later than 60 days after the documents are submitted.
    Over the last several years, operational commanders in Iraq 
have identified urgent operational needs for mine-resistant, 
ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs), non-lethal laser dazzlers, 
and other critical equipment. The committee is aware of 
allegations that requests for some of these items not only went 
unmet, but were not even presented to senior officials 
responsible for validating the requests for periods in excess 
of a year. While the military services must continue to have 
the flexibility to balance competing needs and determine what 
equipment to acquire, urgent operational needs identified by 
commanders in the field should at a minimum receive a speedy 
review and response by responsible officials.
Incorporation of energy efficiency requirements into key performance 
        parameters for fuel consuming systems (sec. 814)
    The February 2008 report of the Defense Science Board Task 
Force on DOD Energy Strategy found that the Department of 
Defense had taken limited action on recommendations from a 
similar Defense Science Board energy study in 2001 with respect 
to energy efficiency and investments in weapons systems. The 
task force concluded that the Department ``systematically 
underestimates'' the full cost of fuel in the life cycle costs 
of weapons systems and that the Department fails to value or 
emphasize the benefits of fuel efficiency in its requirements, 
budgeting, or acquisition processes. The task force argues that 
demand-side remedies provide the greatest opportunity to reduce 
cost and operational risk in fuel consumption and availability.
    The committee notes that the Department is in the early 
stages of considering changes to the acquisition process with 
respect to energy related requirements and the calculation and 
consideration of the fully burdened cost of fuel for current 
and future systems. The task force, however, recommended that 
the Department accelerate the implementation of new standards, 
or key performance parameters, for energy efficiency in the 
research, development, and acquisition of future weapons 
systems. For example, designs for the manned ground combat 
vehicles of the Army's Future Combat System will use hybrid 
electric drive with the potential for significant operational 
risk reduction and fuel costs savings.
    The committee believes that the Department should respond 
aggressively to the task force's recommendations for 
emphasizing energy efficiency in the modification of current or 
development of future fuel consuming systems. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends a provision that would direct the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
to develop acquisition policies, regulations, and directives, 
and a plan for their implementation, that would require program 
managers to incorporate energy efficiency requirements into the 
key performance parameters for military systems. The committee 
further recommends that the Under Secretary provide the defense 
committees a report on the Department's implementation plans 
and accomplishments with its future budget submissions.

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

Multiyear procurement authority for the Department of Defense for the 
        purchase of alternative and synthetic fuels (sec. 821)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the head of a defense agency to enter into multiyear contracts, 
for a period of up to 10 years, for the purchase of alternative 
or synthetic fuels. Such a contract would be authorized only 
if: (1) the agency head determines, on the basis of a business 
case analysis, that the proposed contract is economical and 
cost-effective; and (2) the contract specifies that the life 
cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production 
and combustion of the fuels to be provided under the contract 
are not greater than such emissions from conventional 
petroleum-based fuels that are used in the same application. 
The Secretary of Defense would be required to prescribe 
regulations providing specific standards for determinations to 
be made by agency heads.
    The committee notes that: (1) the cost-effectiveness 
requirements recommended by the committee are comparable to 
those applicable to multiyear contracts for major weapon 
systems; and (2) the greenhouse gas requirement recommended by 
the committee is identical to the standard in section 526 of 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 
110-140). Representatives of both the Department of Defense and 
private sector companies seeking to develop alternative and 
synthetic fuel resources have stated that technology is 
available to meet the greenhouse gas requirements.
Modification and extension of pilot program for transition to follow-on 
        contracts under authority to carry out certain prototype 
        projects (sec. 822)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
4 years the authority granted in section 847 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136) for the Department of Defense to carry out a pilot program 
for the transition of non-traditional defense contractors from 
prototype transactions to follow-on contracts. The provision 
would also ensure that the transition authority may be used for 
technologies developed under research projects carried out 
pursuant to section 2371 of title 10, United States Code.
Exclusion of certain factors in consideration of cost advantages of 
        offers for certain Department of Defense contracts (sec. 823)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that a company seeking a 
DOD contract does not receive a competitive advantage as a 
result of a proposal that reduces costs through the use of 
overseas subsidiaries or other similar corporate structures 
that enable it to avoid the payment of taxes to the Federal or 
State government for or on behalf of employees of the company 
(or any subsidiary or affiliate of the company).
    The committee understands that this provision would apply 
to efforts to avoid the payment of federal social security and 
medicare taxes, and State unemployment taxes, for or on behalf 
of employees. It would not apply to other taxes, such as 
corporate taxes, which are not paid for or on behalf of 
employees.

          Subtitle D--Department of Defense Contractor Matters

Database for Department of Defense contracting officers and suspension 
        and debarment officials (sec. 831)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics to establish and maintain a database of information 
regarding the integrity and contract performance of Department 
of Defense (DOD) contractors for use by DOD acquisition 
officials in making responsibility determinations, past 
performance evaluations, and other contract decisions.
Ethics safeguards for employees under certain contracts for the 
        performance of acquisition functions closely associated with 
        inherently governmental functions (sec. 832)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that each Department of Defense (DOD) contract (or task or 
delivery order) in excess of $500,000 that calls for the 
performance of acquisition functions closely associated with 
inherently governmental functions include a contract clause 
addressing potential personal conflicts of interests of 
contractor employees who will be responsible for the 
performance of such functions.
    The required contract clause would require covered 
contractors to prohibit employees from conducting work for DOD 
with respect to a program, company, contractor, or other matter 
in which the employees have a financial interest; obtain and 
review financial disclosure statements from employees; prohibit 
employees from accepting gifts from companies affected by work 
that they are performing for DOD; prohibit employees from using 
non-public government information for personal gain; take 
appropriate steps to enforce these requirements; and promptly 
report any violations to the appropriate contracting officer.
    The provision requires DOD to develop an appropriate 
definition of the term ``financial interest'' that is similar 
to the definition in statutes and regulations applicable to 
federal employees. The committee expects the implementing 
regulations to encompass both direct and indirect financial 
interests, as well as both actual and apparent conflicts of 
interest.
    In March 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
issued a report entitled ``Additional Personal Conflict of 
Interest Safeguards Needed for Certain DOD Contractor 
Employees.'' GAO determined that contractor employees often 
work alongside DOD employees and perform critical acquisition 
tasks, such as the development of contract requirements, 
advising or assisting on source selection, and making award-fee 
determinations.
    Yet, DOD lacks a Department-wide policy requiring 
safeguards against personal conflicts of interest by such 
contractor employees. GAO recommended that DOD institute such 
safeguards and reported that this recommendation was supported 
by DOD oversight officials, officials of the Office of 
Government Ethics, members of an expert panel on contracting, 
and many program managers. The provision recommended by the 
committee would require DOD to implement the GAO 
recommendation.
Information for Department of Defense contractor employees on their 
        whistleblower rights (sec. 833)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that contractor employees are 
informed of their whistleblower rights and protections under 
section 2409 of title 10, United States Code.

          Subtitle E--Matters Relating to Iraq and Afghanistan

Performance by private security contractors of inherently governmental 
        functions in an area of combat operations (sec. 841)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to revise the regulations issued pursuant 
to section 862 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to ensure that private 
security contractors are not authorized to perform inherently 
governmental functions in an area of combat operations.
    ``Inherently governmental functions'' are defined in Office 
of Management and Budget Circular A-76 and in the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation to include those functions that are ``so 
intimately related to the public interest as to mandate 
performance by government personnel.'' Such functions include 
activities that ``significantly affect the life, liberty, and 
property of private persons.''
    Paragraph E2.1.4 of Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 
1100.22 provides that security provided for the protection of 
people and property in uncontrolled or unpredictable high 
threat areas outside the United States entails a wide range of 
capabilities, some of which are inherently governmental and 
others of which may be provided by contractors. In particular, 
paragraph E2.1.4.1.4 states:

          Security operations that involve more than a response 
        to hostile attacks typically entail substantial 
        discretion and are inherently governmental. For 
        example, security operations that are performed in 
        highly hazardous public areas where the risks are 
        uncertain, could require deadly force that is more 
        likely to be initiated by U.S. forces than occur in 
        self defense. Security operations that require 
        immediate decisions on the appropriate course of action 
        or the acceptable level of risk typically require 
        substantial discretion and are inherently governmental 
        particularly when the outcome could significantly 
        affect the life, liberty, or property of private 
        persons or international relations. Such operations 
        typically require on-the-spot judgments on the 
        appropriate level of force, acceptable level of 
        collateral damage, and whether the target is `friend or 
        foe.' They also require protocols on the use of force 
        that permit discretion for `preemptive' attacks. Such 
        high risk operations require military training and 
        discipline . . . and are designated for military 
        performance.

    Despite this guidance, it appears that private security 
contractors in Iraq have frequently engaged in activities that 
``are performed in highly hazardous public areas where risks 
are uncertain,'' ``could require deadly force that is more 
likely to be initiated by U.S. forces than occur in self 
defense,'' ``require immediate decisions on the appropriate 
course of action or the acceptable level of risk,'' and 
``require on-the-spot judgments on the appropriate level of 
force, acceptable level of collateral damage, and whether the 
target is `friend or foe.' ''
    The provision recommended by the committee would address 
these problems by codifying the standards in DOD Instruction 
1100.22, making these standards uniformly applicable to all 
private security contractors operating in an area of combat 
operations, and requiring contracting agencies to put 
appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with these 
standards.

Additional contractor requirements and responsibilities relating to 
        alleged crimes by or against contractor personnel in Iraq and 
        Afghanistan (sec. 842)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to require the 
development of mechanisms to ensure that: (1) contractors are 
required to report alleged crimes by or against their employees 
in Iraq and Afghanistan to appropriate investigative 
authorities; and (2) contractor employees receive appropriate 
victim and witness assistance in connection with such alleged 
crimes.
    Over the last several months, a number of contractor 
employees who were victims of rape or sexual assault in Iraq 
have publicly alleged that they received little or no help from 
either contractor or government officials. Several of these 
women testified before congressional committees that they were 
``ignored or disciplined'' by company officials to whom they 
reported the alleged assaults, and that they were actively 
discouraged from reporting anything to the government.
    In one case, a woman working for a defense contractor 
reported that she was gang-raped by a co-worker and a soldier 
at a U.S. base in Iraq. Her supervisors, she testified, tried 
to discourage her from reporting the assault. Rather than 
supporting her, the woman's employer submitted her to extensive 
questioning, then required her to sign an inaccurate statement 
of facts before allowing her to move between bases.
    In another case, a woman working in Iraq for the same 
contractor reported that she was sexually assaulted by a male 
co-worker who was never charged.
    The provision recommended by the committee is intended to 
ensure that contractor employees who are the victims of similar 
assaults in the future are not deprived of their legal rights, 
and receive the help that they need and the investigative 
assistance that they deserve.

Clarification and modification of authorities relating to the 
        Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (sec. 
        843)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the co-chairmen of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in 
Iraq and Afghanistan established pursuant to section 841 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181) to exercise waiver authority under section 
8344(i)(1) or section 8468(f)(1) of title 5, United States 
Code, to ensure that federal retirees serving as members or 
staff of the Commission may be paid for their work on behalf of 
the Commission without forfeiting retired pay.

Comprehensive audit of spare parts purchases and depot overhaul and 
        maintenance of equipment for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
        (sec. 844)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Army Audit Agency, the Naval Audit Service, and the Air Force 
Audit Agency to conduct comprehensive audits of spare parts 
purchases and depot overhaul and maintenance of equipment for 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Expedited hiring authority for the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 
        851)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to designate any category of 
acquisition positions within the Department of Defense as 
shortage category positions. A shortage category designation 
would enable the Department of Defense to use direct hiring 
authority, substantially shortening the period of time required 
to fill the positions.
    Section 853 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) extended direct hiring 
authority for acquisition positions in all federal agencies 
other than the Department of Defense. The provision recommended 
by the committee would provide the same authority, for the same 
period, to the Department of Defense.

Specification of Secretary of Defense as ``secretary concerned'' for 
        purposes of licensing of intellectual property for the defense 
        agencies and defense field activities (sec. 852)

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
that the Secretary of Defense is the ``secretary concerned'' 
for the purpose of licensing intellectual property for the 
defense agencies and defense field activities pursuant to 
section 2260 of title 10, United States Code.

Repeal of requirements relating to the military system essential item 
        breakout list (sec. 853)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), which requires the 
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to the 
congressional defense committees listing essential items, 
assemblies, and components of military systems and identifying 
where they are produced. The committee has been unable to 
identify a purpose for this reporting requirement.

                       Items of Special Interest


Contracting officer representatives

    The committee notes that Department of Defense (DOD) 
employees serving as contracting officer representatives (CORs) 
play a critical role in the acquisition process both inside and 
outside the United States. According to the October 31, 2007, 
report of the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program 
Management in Expeditionary Operations, Army CORs in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have not received the training that they need. The 
report states:

          CORs represent the ``last tactical mile'' of 
        expeditionary contracting. However, CORs are assigned * 
        * * as an ``extra duty,'' requiring no experience. A 
        COR is often a young Soldier who does not have any 
        experience as a COR. * * * Although being a COR would 
        ideally be a career-enhancing duty, the COR assignment 
        is often used to send a young Soldier to the other side 
        of the base when a commander does not want to have to 
        deal with the person. Additionally, little, if any 
        training is provided. To further compound matters, 
        generally all COR training is geared for a low-
        operations, low-risk tempo, so it is barely adequate. 
        Despite this, there are still too few CORs. Moreover, 
        COR turnover is high, frequently leaving many gaps in 
        contract coverage.

    As a result of these failures, the Commission found, there 
are often ``no resources trained to monitor and ensure that the 
contractor is performing and providing the services needed by 
the warfighter.'' In some cases, the Army had difficulty 
knowing whether a contractor had performed at all.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by no later than September 30, 2008, on the 
steps that the Department is taking to ensure that it can field 
an adequate number of appropriately trained CORs to monitor the 
performance of contracts both inside and outside the United 
States.

Database and after-action reports for multiyear contracts

    In March 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
issued a report on multiyear procurements by the Department of 
Defense (DOD). The GAO report recommended that DOD: (1) 
implement a central database to track multiyear procurements 
for major weapon systems; and (2) conduct after-action 
assessments at the conclusion of such multiyear procurements to 
determine their effectiveness in achieving predicted benefits 
while managing associated risks. The GAO report recommended 
that after-action assessments address any major deviations 
between the costs and savings predicted and the costs and 
savings actually achieved.
    DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations and has started to 
implement both the database and the after-action assessments. 
The committee expects the Department to complete the 
implementation of both recommendations in a timely manner and 
to use the database and the after-action assessments to inform 
decisions on future multiyear procurements.

Past performance information

    For more than a decade, the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
has required contracting officials to consider information on 
the past performance of offerors when making contract award 
decisions. The committee continues to believe that past 
contract performance can be an important indicator of the 
likelihood that an offeror will successfully perform a similar 
contract in the future.
    In several recent contract award decisions, however, it 
appears that the past performance information considered by 
contracting officials may have been seriously flawed. For 
example, the winning bidder on a recent Army ammunition 
contract valued at more than $300.0 million received top 
ratings for its past performance, even though the company was 
managed by a 22-year-old and had never previously performed a 
contract valued at more than $20.0 million. Similarly, the 
winning bidder on a recent Air Force communications contract 
was given top ratings for past performance, even though it was 
a new company that had never previously performed any similar 
work.
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review methods used 
by the Department of Defense to collect, standardize, access, 
and evaluate past performance information and to report to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by no later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act on steps that the Department plans to 
take to improve the use of such information.
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

Modification of status of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
        Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs (sec. 901)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 142 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that 
the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and 
Chemical and Biological Defense is equivalent to an assistant 
secretary of defense. The committee notes that this important 
position has been vacant for over 18 months.
Participation of Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of 
        Defense on Defense Business System Management Committee (sec. 
        902)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense 
the Vice Chairman of the Defense Business System Management 
Committee. This is a conforming change to section 904 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), which established the position of the Deputy 
Chief Management Officer, and would ensure that the statutory 
reporting chain for the Business Transformation Agency is 
consistent with the reporting chain for the Director of that 
Agency.
Repeal of obsolete limitations on management headquarters personnel 
        (sec. 903)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal caps 
on the number of personnel employed in headquarters activities 
of the military departments and defense agencies, as requested 
by the Department of Defense.
    Section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) repealed the Department-
wide limitation on the number of personnel in headquarters 
activities. However, limitations on the number of personnel in 
headquarters activities of the military departments and defense 
agencies continue to impede the Department's ability to meet 
new demands and expanded requirements in the most cost-
effective manner possible.
General Counsel to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
        (sec. 904)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
a General Counsel to the Department of Defense Inspector 
General who would serve at the discretion of the Inspector 
General, report exclusively to the Inspector General, and be 
independent of the Office of General Counsel of the Department 
of Defense. The committee understands that the Inspectors 
General of other federal agencies have general counsels who 
report only to them. The availability of such independent legal 
advice is critical to the successful performance of the 
Inspector General's function of carrying out independent audits 
and investigations to identify problems and deficiencies in the 
programs and operations of the Department.
Assignment of forces to the United States Northern Command with primary 
        mission of management of the consequences of an incident in the 
        United States homeland involving a chemical, biological, 
        radiological, or nuclear device, or high-yield explosives (sec. 
        905)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that: (1) the Department of Defense should 
make every effort to help protect the Nation from the threat of 
a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield 
explosive (CBRNE) attack; (2) efforts to establish forces to 
manage the consequences of CBRNE incidents should receive the 
highest level of attention within the Department; and (3) the 
additional forces needed for CBRNE consequence management 
should be identified, trained, equipped, and assigned to U.S. 
Northern Command as soon as possible. The provision would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit three reports to the 
congressional defense committees describing the progress made 
toward assigning such forces to U.S. Northern Command. The 
provision specifies a number of elements to be included in the 
reports.
    The committee notes that the Department has directed that a 
full-time, dedicated CBRNE consequence management force be 
trained and equipped by the end of fiscal year 2008, and that 
two additional such forces are to be established by the end of 
the next 2 fiscal years. The Department has begun the process 
of establishing these CBRNE consequence management forces, 
which will be assigned to U.S. Northern Command.
    The committee observes that the Commission on the National 
Guard and the Reserves and the Government Accountability Office 
have been critical of the capacity of the Department to respond 
to domestic CBRNE incidents. The committee believes that 
establishing the CBRNE consequence management forces under U.S. 
Northern Command is an essential step in enhancing the ability 
of the Nation to respond to such incidents.
Business transformation initiatives for the military departments (sec. 
        906)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
each military department to carry out a business transformation 
initiative and to establish an Office of Business 
Transformation (OBT) to assist in that effort.
    Over the last 4 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 
demonstrated a commitment to business systems modernization by 
establishing a Defense System Management Committee, a Business 
Transformation Agency, and a new federated architecture for DOD 
business systems. However, the military departments have not 
yet followed DOD's lead in establishing new governance 
structures to address business transformation; have not yet 
developed comprehensive enterprise architectures and transition 
plans consistent with statutory requirements; and continue to 
rely upon stovepiped structures to implement piecemeal reforms.
    The committee expects the new OBTs to lead cross-domain 
governance of business transformation efforts and to ensure 
that business solutions optimize the military department's 
business operations as a whole rather than the operations of 
separate functional elements of the department. OBTs should be 
staffed with functional and technical experts who are able to 
establish working level relationships with the functional 
elements and ensure that their needs are addressed within a 
comprehensive end-to-end business architecture. The provision 
recommended by the committee would authorize the Directors of 
Business Transformation to direct specific actions by such 
functional elements when necessary to carry out a business 
transformation initiative.

                       Subtitle B--Space Matters

Space posture review (sec. 911)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Director of 
National Intelligence, to conduct a comprehensive review of the 
space posture of the United States. The review would cover a 
10-year period beginning February 1, 2009. The Secretary would 
be required to submit the report no later than December 1, 
2009.
    The committee is concerned that most military space 
capabilities are being modernized simultaneously. Almost all of 
these modernization programs have exceeded their schedule and 
cost estimates, some significantly. The growth in and demands 
on the space budget are occurring at a time when Air Force 
Space Command is trying to improve space situational awareness 
capabilities, and the space community in general is concerned 
about possible threats to space systems. The review in the 
recommended provision would emphasize the increased focus on 
space awareness and control activities. In completing the 
review the committee directs the Secretary and the Director to 
look at the comparative funding levels for both space 
situational awareness and satellite protection programs and the 
satellite modernization programs.
    The provision would also direct a review of the export 
control regime with respect to space systems and technologies.

                Subtitle C--Defense Intelligence Matters


Requirement for officers of the armed forces on active duty in certain 
        intelligence positions (sec. 921)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require, 
effective October 1, 2008, that the principal deputy to the 
senior service intelligence officer be a commissioned officer 
of the armed forces on active duty.
    Each of the military services assigns a senior active duty 
military officer of flag or general officer rank to serve as 
the senior intelligence adviser to the Chief of Staff or Chief 
of Naval Operations. However, the services are not consistent 
in assigning military officers as the deputy to the senior 
service intelligence officers, with uneven results. This 
provision would correct that situation.

Transfer of management of Intelligence Systems Support Office (sec. 
        922)

    As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee 
recommends a provision that would transfer management of the 
Intelligence Systems Support Office and other projects and 
activities currently conducted by the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSDI) to other 
components of the Department of Defense. This provision would 
ensure consistent application of OUSDI policy regarding OUSDI 
execution of development, acquisition, and operational support 
programs.

Program on advanced sensor applications (sec. 923)

    The committee is troubled that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has not complied with section 215 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). 
Section 215 directed that the Department transfer funds within 
60 days of enactment to the Advanced Sensor Applications 
Program (ASAP), a deadline reached on March 28, 2008, without 
any action by the Department.
    The committee is cautiously optimistic that DOD is gaining 
an understanding of the facts about the ASAP and its 
importance. With that understanding, DOD appears to be moving 
towards compliance with congressional direction for sustaining 
funding for the ASAP for fiscal year 2008 and to identify 
funding for fiscal year 2009.
    However, without official notification of action to comply 
with section 215, the committee must act to preserve its 
interest in this matter. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
provision that would establish the ASAP within the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics.
    The committee remains concerned that the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Intelligence (USDI) intends to transfer the program 
to elements of the Navy that have attempted strenuously to 
terminate the program, and to sever the existing partnership 
with an ally. The USDI's position has been that it is 
inappropriate for the USDI to oversee the execution of a 
program involving scientific and engineering assessment of 
intelligence data, and that the Navy should have total 
responsibility for this activity.
    The committee has two fundamental problems with USDI's 
position. The first is that transferring total program 
responsibility to the Navy is inconsistent with the mandate 
Congress established for the ASAP long ago and has maintained 
consistently since.
    This mandate is for the Department to conduct a scientific 
and engineering assessment of potential anti-submarine warfare 
(ASW) threats that is parallel to, but independent of, the 
Submarine Security Program run by the Navy. To ensure 
independence, Congress has always insisted that this effort be 
sponsored by an Office of the Secretary of Defense 
organization, even while supporting execution by Navy elements 
with an ASW mission. Transferring the program entirely to the 
Navy subjects the program to pressures arising from various 
institutional biases. Also, despite long experience with its 
own submarine security program, which like the ASAP is neither 
an intelligence nor an acquisition program, the Navy's Office 
of Naval Intelligence and acquisition community appear 
determined to put the ASAP program into one category or the 
other.
    The second problem is that the USDI sponsors and executes, 
albeit through an Air Force program element, a large number of 
operational support activities and research and development 
(R&D) programs. Indeed, USDI has long maintained a significant 
budget for R&D that it uses to delve into diverse topics it 
deems to be of special interest. If there is no place for the 
ASAP in USDI, then USDI should not be conducting these other 
activities either.
    The budget request included no funds in PE 63714D8Z for the 
ASAP. The committee recommends an authorization of $20.0 
million for ASAP. The committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 
million to the request for the Intelligence Systems Support 
Office (ISSO) (PE 11815F), and a reduction of $10.0 million 
from the request in Air Force Operation and Maintenance funds 
for the Threat Financing program executed by ISSO.
                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the transfer of up to $5.0 billion of funds authorized in 
division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in 
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. This is the 
amount contained in the administration's fiscal year 2009 
budget request. Transfers of funds between military personnel 
authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar 
limitation in this provision.
Incorporation into Act of tables in the report of the Committee on 
        Armed Services of the Senate (sec. 1002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would incorporate 
the funding tables in this report into the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and make the items in 
each such funding table binding on agency heads, subject to 
reprogramming in accordance with established procedures.
    Consistent with the previously expressed views of the 
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by 
agency heads to commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis 
of such funding tables be based on authorized, transparent, 
statutory criteria, and merit-based decisionmaking in 
accordance with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 
of title 10, United States Code. Under these provisions, the 
presumption in favor of competitive, merit-based awards may be 
overcome only by a provision of law that specifically refers to 
section 2304 or section 2374, identifies the particular non-
Federal Government entity involved, and states that award to 
the entity is required notwithstanding the policy favoring 
merit-based selection.
    On January 29, 2008, the President signed Executive Order 
13457, which states that agency decisions to commit, obligate, 
or expend funds may not be ``based on language in any report of 
a committee of Congress, joint explanatory statement of a 
committee of conference of the Congress, statement of managers 
concerning a bill in the Congress, or any other non-statutory 
statement or indication of views of the Congress, or a House, 
committee, Member, officer, or staff thereof.''
    The consistent practice of the Committee on Armed Services 
has been to include broad categorical authorizations in bill 
language--such as $10.0 billion for Army research, development, 
test, and evaluation or $25.0 billion for Air Force research, 
development, test, and evaluation--while specifying the 
particular programs for which this money is authorized in 
funding tables in the committee report accompanying the bill. 
These tables are placed before the committee in mark-up, are 
subject to amendment by the committee, and are approved by the 
committee when the bill is reported to the floor. It is, and 
has been, the intent of the committee that these funding 
decisions are binding upon the executive branch.
    The provision recommended by the committee would ensure the 
force and effect of funding decisions made by the committee by 
incorporating the funding tables reflecting those decisions 
into the bill.
    The committee notes that the table included in the bill in 
compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate--
which discloses information on members requesting funding 
items, suggested recipients, and suggested locations of 
performance--is not a funding table, is not binding on the 
executive branch, and is not incorporated into the bill by this 
provision.
United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal year 
        2009 (sec. 1003)
    The resolution of ratification for the Protocols to the 
North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, 
Hungary, and the Czech Republic contained a provision (section 
3(2)(c)(ii)) requiring a specific authorization for U.S. 
payments to the common-funded budgets of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) for each fiscal year, beginning in 
fiscal year 1999, in which U.S. payments exceed the fiscal year 
1998 total. The committee recommends a provision that would 
authorize the U.S. contribution to NATO common-funded budgets 
for fiscal year 2009, including the use of unexpended balances 
from prior years.

                Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Government rights in designs of Department of Defense vessels, boats, 
        craft, and components developed using public funds (sec. 1011)
    The committee recommends a provision that would affirm that 
the government's rights in the designs of vessels, boats, 
craft, and components developed for the Department of Defense 
(DOD) using public funds in whole or in part are governed 
exclusively by the requirements of section 2320 of title 10, 
United States Code or, in certain cases, the agreement pursuant 
to which the development was undertaken.
    Section 2320 provides that: (1) in the case of items 
developed by a contractor or subcontractor exclusively with 
government funds, the government has unlimited technical data 
rights; and (2) in the case of items developed with mixed 
government and private funding, rights in technical data are 
determined by negotiation and generally include government-
purpose rights. The continued application of section 2320 and 
the DOD implementing regulations should ensure that DOD is not 
required to purchase the same data rights more than once.
Reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy mess operations (sec. 1012)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to fund from agency operating accounts 
the cost of meals on United States naval and naval auxiliary 
vessels for non-military personnel. For the purposes of this 
provision, this includes nongovernmental organization (NGO) and 
host and partner nation participants in civil-military 
operations and foreign national patients treated during the 
conduct of civil-military operations, as well as their escorts.
    Recent humanitarian relief missions executed by the USNS 
MERCY and other vessels have successfully fostered a positive 
image of America worldwide. Project Hope and other NGOs, host 
and partner nations, joint services, and U.S. Government 
agencies participated in these missions, providing medical 
services including the treatment of foreign national patients 
onboard and ashore. These participants have been required to 
pay for their meals. There is no specific statutory authority 
to waive such meal payment or to use general operation and 
maintenance appropriated funds to pay for official visitor/
guest messing.
    As a result of the success of these missions, the 
Department of the Navy plans future deployments that will 
include the conduct of civil-military operations, including 
delivery of medical, dental, veterinary, and engineering 
services to underserved populations in Southeast Asia, Africa, 
and other places. The Department of the Navy has determined 
that the participation of NGOs and host and partner nations is 
vital to the successful execution of these important missions, 
that their contribution far outweighs the cost of messing, and 
that it is not in the government's best interests to assess 
these participants and patients messing costs. To the extent 
future official visitor/guest messing costs are anticipated, an 
alternative to emergency or extraordinary expense funding--
which has been covering these costs to date--would be 
appropriate.
    The Department of Defense has informed the committee that 
the Department of the Navy estimates the fiscal year 2009 cost 
of these operations at about $700,000.

                  Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities

Extension of authority for joint task forces to provide support to law 
        enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities 
        (sec. 1021)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
authority for joint task forces to use counterdrug funds to 
support law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorist 
activities.
    The committee directs the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Counternarcotics Affairs to provide an annual 
briefing about the use of this authority to the committee.
    The committee notes that if the Department of Defense (DOD) 
or the law enforcement agencies do not have sufficient funds 
for counterterrorist activities, funding should be sought for 
those purposes. The base budget for DOD counterdrug activities 
has remained constant over about the last decade, and while the 
committee supports using funds to address counterdrug and 
counterterrorist threats simultaneously, the committee urges 
DOD to be mindful of counterdrug priorities.
Two-year extension of authority for use of funds for unified 
        counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 
        1022)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 2 
years the authority to use counterdrug funds to support the 
Government of Colombia's unified campaign against narcotics 
cultivation and trafficking, and against terrorist 
organizations involved in such drug trafficking activities.
    The committee has provided funding since fiscal year 2000 
to support Colombia's effort to defeat the narco-terrorists 
threatening the Colombian state and stability in the region. 
The Colombian Government has moved from Plan Colombia to Plan 
Patriota, the military campaign to retake control of all 
municipalities in Colombia, to the current third phase, Plan 
Consolidacion. This plan, which should stretch to the end of 
2009, aims to establish governance and ensure that military 
gains are irreversible. Meanwhile, the military campaign to 
defeat the narco-terrorists continues, along with the 
demobilization of the paramilitaries. President Uribe's 
administration, with U.S. help, is also making efforts to 
improve human rights, and create employment opportunities for 
the over 30,000 demobilized paramilitaries.
    The committee applauds the military progress that Colombian 
forces, with U.S. assistance, have achieved and encourages the 
Colombian Government to continue to increase its emphasis on 
socio-economic reform and development, human rights, and to 
further improve military professionalization and proficiency.

         Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

Procurement by State and local governments of equipment for homeland 
        security and emergency response activities through the 
        Department of Defense (sec. 1031)
    The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 
categories of equipment that may be purchased through the 
Department of Defense (DOD) by State and local governments to 
include consequence management equipment for homeland security 
and emergency response activities, as requested by DOD.
Enhancement of the capacity of the United States Government to conduct 
        complex operations (sec. 1032)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish a Center for Complex 
Operations. This center would facilitate the activities of a 
consortium made up of education and training institutions from 
across the U.S. Government. These activities, including 
conferences, seminars, and other information exchanges, would 
allow the center to identify topics of importance for the 
leadership of the U.S. Government and the complex operations 
community. The objective would be to enhance the training and 
education of military personnel and their civilian counterparts 
across different agencies, and to increase unity of effort in 
complex operations. The provision would define complex 
operations as stability, security, transition and 
reconstruction operations; counterinsurgency operations; and 
irregular warfare.
    The committee notes that such a center does currently 
exist. Express authorization for the center would allow for the 
center to be funded collectively by the Departments of Defense 
and State, U.S. Agency for International Development, and other 
departments and agencies, rather than having to rely on 
discrete partner funding for each activity. This would 
facilitate greater interagency cooperation and allow for smooth 
execution of activities. This legislation would also allow the 
center to receive funding from other agencies, states, or other 
foreign and domestic entities.
Crediting of admiralty claim receipts for damage to property funded 
        from a Department of Defense working capital fund (sec. 1033)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
that payments received by the United States in settlement of an 
admiralty claim for damage or loss to property that is operated 
and maintained using monies from a Department of Defense 
working capital fund account would be credited to the working 
capital fund which was used to operate and maintain the damaged 
or lost property.
Minimum annual purchase requirements for airlift services from carriers 
        participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (sec. 1034)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Department of Defense to guarantee higher minimum levels of 
business than are currently authorized by law to United States 
air carriers participating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet 
(CRAF). This provision was included in the set of provisions in 
the authorization request of the Department of Defense.
    Section 356 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) required the Secretary of 
Defense to provide for an independent assessment of the 
viability of the CRAF program. Section 356 required a report on 
a number of issues. This direction asked for the assessment to 
make specific recommendations for improving the CRAF program, 
including assessing potential incentives for increasing 
participation in the CRAF program. One potential method for 
increasing participation specifically identified was the option 
of establishing a minimum annual purchase amount during 
peacetime. Although the report was supposed to be delivered to 
the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2008, the 
Department has indicated that this report will not be ready 
until later this year.
    In anticipation that the report could recommend 
establishing minimum annual purchase amounts during peacetime, 
the committee believes that the legislative option for doing so 
this year should remain open.
Termination date of base contract for the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet 
        (sec. 1035)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Navy flexibility in extending the termination date of the 
current Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) contract by 1 month. 
The Navy is currently finalizing requirements and developing an 
acquisition strategy for the Next Generation Enterprise Network 
(NGEN), a program that will provide computing services and 
infrastructure to significant portions of the Navy and Marine 
Corps upon termination of the current NMCI program. The 
committee has some concern about the compressed nature of the 
NGEN selection process and schedule and the lack of direct 
engagement with industry on requirements, technical issues, and 
acquisition strategy and expects these to be addressed over the 
coming months.
    The committee believes that providing authority to extend 
the current NMCI contract will enable the Navy to be better 
able to run a full, fair, and open selection process that 
results in the best value for the government and meets Navy 
requirements. The committee believes the extension will also 
smooth the transition of provision of services under the 
current NMCI program and the NGEN program. Finally, the 
extension will enable the Navy to better adjust activities to 
reflect the potential of a late appropriation in fiscal year 
2011 that could cause disruption of services to Navy and Marine 
Corps personnel and organizations.

Prohibition on interrogation of detainees by contractor personnel (sec. 
        1036)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
that the interrogation of detainees during or in the aftermath 
of hostilities is an inherently governmental function that 
cannot be transferred to private sector contractors. The 
provision would become effective 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, to provide the Department of Defense 
(DOD) time to comply.
    DOD guidance documents in effect through 2005 provided that 
``How enemy prisoners of war (POWs), terrorists, and criminals 
are treated when captured, in transit, confined, and 
interrogated during or in the aftermath of hostilities entails 
the discretionary exercise of government authority'' and 
``cannot be transferred to the private sector.'' In 2006, 
however, this guidance was revised to expressly authorize the 
use of contractors to perform interrogations.
    According to reports of investigations conducted by Major 
General Antonio M. Taguba and Major General George R. Fay, 
contract interrogators are alleged to have participated in some 
of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison 4 years ago. At that time, 
the Acting Secretary of the Army testified that the Army was 
planning ``to build additional force structure so that 
operational and theater level intelligence functions will be 
performed in-house in the future.'' Four years later, the 
Department of Defense still has almost 100 contractor employees 
conducting interrogations of detainees.
    The interrogation of detainees during or in the aftermath 
of hostilities entails the exercise of substantial discretion 
in applying government authority and is likely to have a 
significant impact on the life and liberty of the individuals 
questioned. The committee concludes that the conduct of such 
interrogations is an inherently governmental function that 
should be performed exclusively by military or civilian 
employees of the Department.

Notification of Committees on Armed Services with respect to certain 
        nonproliferation and proliferation activities (sec. 1037)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Departments of Defense, Energy, State, and Commerce, and the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to keep the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives fully 
and currently informed with respect to their activities to 
prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
the Director of National Intelligence to keep the committees 
currently informed with respect to the current activities of 
foreign nations that are of significance from the proliferation 
standpoint.

Sense of Congress on nuclear weapons management (sec. 1038)

    The committee recommends a provision that would set forth 
the sense of Congress finding that the unauthorized transfer of 
nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, to 
Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, in August 2007; the 
unauthorized transfer of classified intercontinental ballistic 
missile parts, discovered in March 2008; and a lack of training 
and staffing for nuclear matters, demonstrate a lack of 
attention by the Department of Defense (DOD) to nuclear issues 
in general. In addition, the provision would set forth the 
sense of Congress that safety and security of nuclear weapons 
and related equipment should be a high priority for the United 
States; that the President should take steps to nominate an 
individual to fill the position of the Assistant to the 
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological 
Defense Programs; and that the Secretary of Defense should 
establish a senior position in the DOD Office of Policy at an 
assistant secretarial or deputy under secretarial level with 
responsibility for nuclear policy issues.
    The three reviews of the nuclear weapons transfer incident 
concluded that attention to nuclear matters has substantially 
eroded over the last decade. This erosion in turn, has led to 
inattention to nuclear procedures and policies. The three 
review teams made over 100 recommendations to address the many 
problems. The committee will be watching closely how DOD and 
the Air Force implement these recommendations.

Sense of Congress on Joint Department of Defense-Federal Aviation 
        Administration Executive Committee on Conflict and Dispute 
        Resolution (sec. 1039)

    As discussed at length elsewhere in this report, there is 
an urgent need for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to work more effectively 
together to resolve problems and issues that impede DOD 
unmanned aerial systems (UAS) from operating in the National 
Airspace (NAS). DOD and the FAA signed a memorandum of 
agreement (MOA) in September 2007 creating a working 
relationship to address technical, procedural, and policy 
issues regarding UAS access to the NAS. The FAA has created an 
Unmanned Aircraft Program Office and the DOD has created a UAS 
Task Force and UAS Senior Steering Group. These steps, while 
important, have not produced the rate of progress necessary to 
sustain and grow vital UAS support to the combatant commands. 
It is the committee's judgment that national security could be 
adversely affected without more vigorous efforts.
    The committee believes that a formal DOD-FAA committee 
should be established at a senior level to ensure progress by 
the military services and the FAA in meeting their obligations 
under the MOA, to resolve disputes, and to make the agreements 
necessary for DOD to carry out its plans to field very large 
numbers of UAS and utilize them effectively.
    More broadly, senior DOD and FAA officials agree that there 
are multiple, important issues that require higher-level and 
sustained policy attention. One example is the ongoing 
discussions over fee-for-service aerial refueling. The 
committee is encouraged by recent efforts to resolve conflicts 
over type ratings for aerial refueling aircraft, but much work 
remains to be done. A senior-level body for conflict resolution 
could pave the way for more streamlined, safety-conscious 
interactions and more effective national policy development.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
should seek an agreement with the Administrator of the FAA to 
establish a Joint Executive Committee at the level of the 
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AAAS) and the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics (USD/AT&L). Such a Committee could serve as the focal 
point for dispute resolution and policy development, and a 
mechanism for identifying solutions to a range of mutual 
issues.

Sense of Congress on sale of new outsize cargo, strategic lift aircraft 
        for civilian use (sec. 1040)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should:
          (1) review the benefits and feasibility of pursuing a 
        commercial-military cargo initiative for the C-17 
        aircraft and determine whether such an initiative is in 
        the national interest; and
          (2) if the Secretary determines that such an 
        initiative is in the national interest, take 
        appropriate actions to coordinate with the Federal 
        Aviation Administration (FAA) to achieve the type 
        certification for such aircraft required by section 
        21.27 of title 14, Code 12 of Federal Regulations.
    The FAA has informed the committee that no fewer than six 
commercial operators have expressed interest in procuring a 
commercial variant of the C-17 aircraft. According to officials 
within the FAA, the FAA cannot initiate a type certification 
review that would be required to allow C-17 commercial 
operations on its own initiative. Some other government entity, 
such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Congress, etc., would have to decide that it 
would be in the national interest and so inform the FAA before 
it could begin such a review. This provision would encourage 
the Secretary of Defense to decide whether it would be in the 
national interest.

                          Subtitle E--Reports


Repeal of requirement to submit certain annual reports to Congress 
        regarding allied contributions to the common defense (sec. 
        1051)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
certain annual reporting requirements relating to the 
contributions of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
members to the common defense. The committee believes these 
reporting requirements are outdated, and impose an unnecessary 
burden on the executive branch. The committee notes that 
relevant information on allied contributions is provided in a 
number of annual reports to Congress, such as those on the NATO 
Prague Capabilities Commitment and the NATO Response Force 
agreements, and other sources.

Report on detention operations in Iraq (sec. 1052)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees on detention operations at theater 
internment facilities and reintegration centers in Iraq since 
January 1, 2007. The report would require detailed information 
on changes in detention policies and procedures intended to 
incorporate counterinsurgency doctrine into detention 
operations and programs to prepare detainees for reintegration 
upon their release.
    The committee urges the Department of Defense to assess 
thoroughly the impact of the revised detention and 
reintegration policies and procedures in Iraq. The committee 
believes that the revised U.S. detention policies and 
procedures implemented in Iraq since 2007 could provide 
valuable lessons for U.S. detention practices elsewhere. The 
committee strongly encourages the Department to integrate these 
lessons into Department directives, joint doctrine, exercises, 
and training for detention and interrogation operations.

Strategic plan to enhance the role of the National Guard and Reserves 
        in the national defense (sec. 1053)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic plan to enhance the 
role of the National Guard and reserves in the national 
defense, including the transition of the reserve components of 
the armed forces from a strategic force to an operational 
force. The provision would require the Secretary to submit to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives a report setting forth the plan not later than 
July 1, 2009.
    The Report of the Commission on the National Guard and 
Reserves is a comprehensive evaluation of the reserve 
components of the armed forces that recognizes that legislative 
and policy changes have not kept pace with the changes in the 
use of the National Guard and reserves. This report contains 95 
recommendations that must be evaluated and considered for 
implementation. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to develop a strategic plan that considers the role of the 
National Guard and reserves that takes into account the 
findings and recommendations of this Commission; the findings 
and recommendations of the report of the Center for Strategic 
and International Studies on ``The Future of the National Guard 
and Reserves''; S. 2760 of the 110th Congress, the National 
Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 
2008; and current policies of the Department of Defense.
    The committee greatly appreciates the contributions of the 
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves and the Center 
for Strategic and International Studies that lead to a greater 
understanding of the issues involved in the increased use of 
the reserve components. The committee intends to ensure that 
the issues raised are fully considered and acted on as 
appropriate, taking into account the primacy of the Department 
of Defense's combat responsibilities.

Review of nonnuclear prompt global strike concept demonstrations (sec. 
        1054)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to conduct a review of the prompt global strike 
technologies that will be demonstrated beginning in fiscal year 
2010. The report would set forth the cost of the demonstration, 
identify any legal, treaty, or policy related issues that might 
be associated with the concept demonstrated or the 
demonstration itself, and whether and to what extent there is a 
possibility that the concept or the demonstration itself could 
be confused with a nuclear weapons system. In addition, the 
report would set forth a description of the types of targets 
against which the concept demonstrated might be used. The 
report would be submitted to the congressional defense 
committees no later than 30 days after the date on which the 
budget is submitted.

Review of bandwidth capacity requirements of the Department of Defense 
        and the intelligence community (sec. 1055)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence 
to conduct a joint review of the current and future bandwidth 
capacity requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD) and 
the intelligence community over the next 10 years. The review 
would also include a discussion of any mitigation concepts, 
including operational or technical options that might be used 
to address bandwidth capacity shortfalls. Not later than 1 year 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the 
Director would be required to submit a report setting forth the 
results of the review to the congressional defense committees 
and the intelligence committees of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. The Secretary and the Director should include 
and fully address in the review all means by which bandwidth is 
provided, including ground, aerial, and satellite options.
    The provision would also direct the Secretary and the 
Director to establish a formal process, for each major defense 
acquisition or major system acquisition program, to ensure 
during the Milestone B or key decision point B phase of the 
acquisition process, that the bandwidth requirements of each 
such system can be met.
    The committee is concerned that there is a disconnect 
between the bandwidth requirements of major systems such as 
unmanned aerial vehicles and other intelligence surveillance 
and reconnaissance systems, and the Army Future Combat System, 
and the ground and space systems required to meet those 
requirements.

                  Subtitle F--Wounded Warrior Matters


Modification of utilization of veterans' presumption of sound condition 
        in establishing eligibility of members of the armed forces for 
        retirement for disability (sec. 1061)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1201 and 1203 of title 10, United States Code, to 
adopt the same presumption of sound condition used by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs in accordance with section 1111 
of title 38, United States Code, that a disability is incurred 
while on active duty if the disability was not noted at the 
time of a member's entrance on active duty unless clear and 
unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the disability existed 
before the member's entrance on active duty and was not 
aggravated by active military service.

Inclusion of service members in inpatient status in wounded warrior 
        policies and protections (sec. 1062)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1602(7) of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181)) to include inpatient service members in the 
definition of a ``recovering service member'' for purposes of 
policies and protections for wounded warriors.

Clarification of certain information sharing between the Department of 
        Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs for wounded warrior 
        purposes (sec. 1063)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1614(b)(11) of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181)) to require the Secretary of Defense and 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to implement a process for 
transferring medical records of a recovering service member 
from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs when the transfer is authorized by regulations 
implementing the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996.

Additional responsibilities for the wounded warrior resource center 
        (sec. 1064)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1616(a) of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181)), to require the Secretary of Defense to provide 
referrals for legal assistance where appropriate to wounded 
warriors, their families, and primary caregivers.
    The committee has been made aware of certain cases where 
family or legal guardians of incapacitated wounded warriors 
were in need of legal assistance to help with future financial 
and estate planning and other needs on behalf of the service 
member. The committee believes that the wounded warrior center 
established by section 1616 should be a comprehensive resource 
not only for wounded warriors, but for their families and 
caregivers as well. Therefore, the committee directs that 
referral information be made available where appropriate upon 
request. The committee notes that the intent of this provision 
is not to create a new entitlement for legal assistance.

Responsibility for the center of excellence in the prevention, 
        diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of 
        traumatic brain injury to conduct pilot programs on treatment 
        approaches for traumatic brain injury (sec. 1065) 

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1621(c) of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181)) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct 
pilot programs to promote or assess the efficacy of treatment 
approaches for all forms of traumatic brain injury, to include 
mild traumatic brain injury.
    The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense and 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have numerous efforts 
underway to conduct research on effective clinical approaches 
to mitigating the consequences of traumatic brain injury, 
including potential pharmacological approaches. One such 
potential candidate is the drug progesterone, for which 
according to the Department of Defense (DOD), future studies 
are planned by NIH. The committee encourages the Department to 
continue research efforts on potential clinical drug candidates 
to treat traumatic brain injury under the auspices of the DOD 
Center of Excellence in the Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, 
and Rehabilitation of Traumatic Brain Injury, to include 
participation, as appropriate, in clinical trials conducted by 
the National Institutes of Health.

Center of excellence in the mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation 
        of traumatic extremity injuries and amputations (sec. 1066)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
jointly establish a center of excellence in the mitigation, 
treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic extremity injuries 
and amputations, as well as a comprehensive plan and strategy 
for how the center should approach these issues. The provision 
would also require the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans 
Affairs to jointly submit to Congress annual reports on the 
activities of the center.
    The committee believes there is a need for targeted medical 
research to help military surgeons find new limb-sparing 
techniques to save injured extremities, avoid amputations, and 
preserve and restore the function of injured extremities.

Three-year extension of Senior Oversight Committee with respect to 
        wounded warrior matters (sec. 1067)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
jointly take actions to continue the operations of the Senior 
Oversight Committee established to address concerns related to 
the treatment of wounded, ill, and injured members of the armed 
forces and veterans until September 30, 2011.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters


Military salute for the flag during the national anthem by members of 
        the armed forces not in uniform and by veterans (sec. 1081)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 301 of title 36, United States Code, to authorize 
members of the armed forces and veterans to render a military 
salute in the same manner as members of the armed forces in 
uniform during a rendition of the national anthem.

Modification of deadlines for standards required for entry to military 
        installations in the United States (sec. 1082)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1069 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to extend deadlines 
established for the development and implementation of standards 
for access to military installations in the United States. The 
Department of Defense has informed the committee that it is 
unable to develop and implement the required standards in the 
time provided.

                       Items of Special Interest


Compliance with Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate

    In accordance with the requirements of Rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, this report includes a table 
listing additional funding for items requested by Senators, 
along with the intended recipient and intended location of 
performance for those spending items. The information in this 
table will be posted on the website of the Committee on Armed 
Services after the committee votes to report the bill.
    In addition, the committee has requested that each member 
requesting additional funding for items in this bill provide a 
certification that neither the Senator nor the Senator's 
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, as 
required by Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The 
committee has received the requested certification from each 
Senator requesting funding for items that is provided in this 
bill. These certifications will also be posted on the website 
of the Committee on Armed Services after the committee votes to 
report the bill.
    By including a table of requested funding items in the 
report and posting Member certifications relative to such 
funding items on the committee website, the committee takes no 
position as to which of these items, if any, meet the 
definition of a congressionally directed spending item, limited 
tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit in Rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate. The committee directs the 
Department of Defense to use all applicable competitive, merit-
based procedures in the award of any new contract, grant, or 
other agreement entered into with funds authorized to be 
appropriated by this bill. No provision in the bill or report 
shall be construed to direct funds to any particular location 
or entity unless the provision expressly so provides.

Fully interoperable electronic health information for the Department of 
        Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs

    The committee notes that 5 years have passed since the May 
2003 recommendation of the President's Task Force to Improve 
Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) should ``develop and deploy by fiscal year 2005 electronic 
medical records that are interoperable, bidirectional and 
standards-based.'' According to a report of the Comptroller 
General dated April 30, 2008, although some progress has been 
made, the goal to develop interoperable electronic medical 
records has been only partially achieved.
    In July 2007, the President's Commission on Care for 
America's Returning Wounded Warriors found that the Departments 
had continued to develop independent, stand-alone systems, and 
recommended that DOD and VA move rapidly to make all essential 
health information available to clinicians, working toward a 
``fully interoperable information system that will meet the 
long-term administrative and clinical needs of all military 
personnel over time.''
    Section 1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal year 2008 (Public Law 108-181) required the 
establishment of a joint DOD and VA Program Office to ``develop 
and implement electronic health record systems or capabilities 
that allow for full interoperability of personal health care 
information'' between the DOD and VA by September 30, 2009.
    The committee is concerned that the Departments are moving 
too slowly in the development of milestones and plans needed to 
achieve this important statutory requirement, and that initial 
plans for the Joint Program Office characterized its role as 
``management oversight'' rather than the directive, accountable 
entity intended by Congress. The committee intends to closely 
scrutinize the Departments' progress and application of 
resources toward achievement of the long overdue goal of fully 
interoperable electronic health information for the Department 
of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs.

Interagency coordination and participation in post-conflict stability 
        and reconstruction operations

    Recent and ongoing experience in Iraq and Afghanistan 
continues to highlight the need for effective interagency 
coordination and participation in post-conflict stability and 
reconstruction operations. The committee remains concerned that 
the civilian agencies of the U.S. Government do not have all of 
the resources and authorities, or the institutional cultures, 
necessary to be able to deploy personnel and expertise to 
situations such as those we are currently facing in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. While this challenge has received much needed 
attention in recent years, and while improvements have been 
made, it is clear that making and sustaining the needed 
institutional changes will be a years-long process. In the 
meantime, Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Iraq and 
Afghanistan remain understaffed. The civilian agencies of 
government have not been able to recruit sufficient personnel 
to fill PRT requirements. While the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has deployed personnel to fill the gaps, DOD has struggled to 
recruit personnel with the appropriate skills for those 
positions. In addition, DOD funds are being used for urgent 
humanitarian and reconstruction assistance because the agencies 
normally responsible for those functions--the Department of 
State and the U.S. Agency for International Development--are 
underfunded and lack authorities that allow for sufficient 
flexibility to respond to urgent, unanticipated requirements.
    The committee notes the many studies on these matters that 
have been completed or are currently underway in think tanks 
and nongovernmental organizations, including a report on the 
national security interagency system that was required by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), which is to be provided to Congress and the 
President by September 1, 2008. The committee further notes 
that many new authorities have been provided to DOD in the area 
of foreign military assistance precisely to provide near-term 
solutions to systemic problems that demand longer-term and 
thoroughly considered solutions. It is clear that the next 
administration will have to grapple with these challenges. The 
committee looks forward to reviewing any proposals that emerge 
over the coming year and to working with other committees of 
Congress and the executive branch to help ensure that our 
national security and civilian agencies of government are well 
configured, resourced, and institutionally inclined to work 
together so that the U.S. Government can effectively promote 
its interests and accomplish its objectives when conducting 
post-conflict stability and reconstruction operations.

National cyber security initiative

    The committee applauds the administration for developing a 
serious, major initiative to begin to close the vulnerabilities 
in the government's information networks and the nation's 
critical infrastructure. The committee believes that the 
administration's actions provide a foundation on which the next 
president can build.
    However, the committee has multiple, significant issues 
with the administration's specific proposals and with the 
overall approach to gaining congressional support for the 
initiative.
    A chief concern is that virtually everything about the 
initiative is highly classified, and most of the information 
that is not classified is categorized as ``For Official Use 
Only.'' These restrictions preclude public education, 
awareness, and debate about the policy and legal issues, real 
or imagined, that the initiative poses in the areas of privacy 
and civil liberties. Without such debate and awareness in such 
important and sensitive areas, it is likely that the initiative 
will make slow or modest progress. The committee strongly urges 
the administration to reconsider the necessity and wisdom of 
the blanket, indiscriminate classification levels established 
for the initiative.
    The administration itself is starting a serious effort as 
part of the initiative to develop an information warfare 
deterrence strategy and declaratory doctrine, much as the 
superpowers did during the Cold War for nuclear conflict. It is 
difficult to conceive how the United States could promulgate a 
meaningful deterrence doctrine if every aspect of our 
capabilities and operational concepts is classified. In the era 
of superpower nuclear competition, while neither side disclosed 
weapons designs, everyone understood the effects of nuclear 
weapons, how they would be delivered, and the circumstances 
under which they would be used. Indeed, deterrence was not 
possible without letting friends and adversaries alike know 
what capabilities we possessed and the price that adversaries 
would pay in a real conflict. Some analogous level of 
disclosure is necessary in the cyber domain.
    The committee also shares the view of the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence that major elements of the cyber 
initiative request should be scaled back because policy and 
legal reviews are not complete, and because the technology is 
not mature. Indeed, the administration is asking for 
substantial funds under the cyber initiative for fielding 
capabilities based on ongoing programs that remain in the 
prototype, or concept development, phase of the acquisition 
process. These elements of the cyber initiative, in other 
words, could not gain approval within the executive branch if 
held to standards enforced on normal acquisition programs. The 
committee's view is that disciplined acquisition processes and 
practices must be applied to the government-wide cyber 
initiative as much as to the ongoing development programs upon 
which the initiative is based.
    The committee also concludes that some major elements of 
the cyber initiative are not solely or even primarily intended 
to support the cyber security mission. Instead, it would be 
more accurate to say that some of the projects support foreign 
intelligence collection and analysis generally rather than the 
cyber security mission particularly. If these elements were 
properly defined, the President's cyber security initiative 
would be seen as substantially more modest than it now appears. 
That is not to say that the proposed projects are not 
worthwhile, but rather that what will be achieved for the more 
than $17.0 billion planned by the administration to secure the 
government's networks is less than what might be expected.
    Finally, the committee concludes that, for all its 
ambitions, the cyber initiative sidesteps some of the most 
important issues that must be addressed to develop the means to 
defend the country. These tough issues include the 
establishment of clear command chains, definition of roles and 
missions for the various agencies and departments, and 
engagement of the private sector.
    Additional information on the cyber initiative is contained 
in the classified annex to this report.

Nuclear security

    In the wake of the Labor Day weekend unauthorized transfer 
of nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, to 
Barksdale, Louisiana, discussed in more detail elsewhere in 
this report, the Air Force included a long list of nuclear 
security related items on the unfunded priorities list of the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The long list totals 
approximately $122.0 million and ranges from $30,000 to operate 
security cameras that have already been installed, to building 
roads. Many of these items have significant out-year costs as 
well. The committee is aware that there are needed security 
enhancements but has declined to include additional funds for 
any of the items on the list. The committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to develop a rational plan to fund 
needed nuclear security enhancements and to submit that plan to 
the congress with the fiscal year 2010 budget. The committee 
expects that the funding to support the plan will be included 
in the Air Force fiscal year 2010 budget request.

Nutrition and dietary care for seriously ill and injured service 
        members

    The committee believes that dietary care of seriously ill 
and injured service members is an important element of quality 
care. Appropriate dietary and nutritional care reduces the risk 
of illness, mitigates the physical effects of extended periods 
of recovery, and leads to improved health outcomes for ill and 
injured soldiers. The committee is concerned that although 
dietary care is carefully controlled for hospital inpatients, 
access to such services for those in an outpatient status, 
including service members in warrior recovery or transition 
units, is hampered by limited dietary personnel resources, and 
reliance on referrals by medical and non-medical personnel of 
service members for dietary and nutritional care.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the service secretaries, to conduct a review 
of the adequacy of dietary and nutritional services to 
seriously ill and injured service members. The review shall 
include:
          (1) an assessment of the requirements for military 
        and civilian dieticians, based on the full range of 
        service member needs, from common dietary challenges to 
        the unique needs of patients recovering from burn or 
        blast injuries, in both inpatient and outpatient 
        settings;
          (2) analysis of current staffing capabilities of the 
        military departments for providing dietary and 
        nutrition services;
          (3) identification of any gaps in such staffing;
          (4) analysis of training of medical and non-medical 
        case managers to identify service members in need of 
        treatment for dietary and nutritional problems;
          (5) an assessment of the adequacy of screening for 
        dietary and nutritional needs for recovering service 
        members; and
          (6) analysis of referral procedures for service 
        members in an outpatient status.
    The Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this 
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives by March 1, 2009. The report shall 
also include a plan for appropriate improvements in training 
and referral procedures for case managers, unit commanders, and 
health care personnel, and such other recommendations and 
actions as the Secretary deems appropriate for improving the 
availability of dietary and nutritional services for seriously 
ill and injured soldiers, in particular those in an outpatient 
status.
    The committee reiterates its expectation that the Secretary 
shall ensure that any health care service required by an 
active-duty service member shall be provided where and when it 
is needed under the supplemental health and dental care 
programs, regardless of any policy concerning access or 
benefits in effect for the TRICARE program.

Recovery care coordinators and medical care case managers for seriously 
        wounded and ill service members

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense and 
Department of Veterans Affairs have begun to hire recovery care 
coordinators and medical care managers to improve assistance in 
care and transition of wounded and ill service members and 
veterans. The committee is concerned that the training and 
hiring of these personnel is not proceeding as rapidly as 
needed, and as a result, care management needs, especially of 
those who were wounded early in Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, are not being met.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense, in 
collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs, to 
explore opportunities to establish partnerships among 
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 
medical facilities, as well as with public and private sector 
universities, to assist in training medical care case 
management personnel needed to support America's returning 
wounded and ill service members. One example of an existing 
partnership which can be built upon to provide such training is 
in Augusta, Georgia, with the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical 
Center at Fort Gordon, the Charlie Norwood Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Medical College of 
Georgia School of Nursing. Such model partnerships can be a 
means of identifying best practices in both care and care 
management for our wounded warriors, and may provide a 
foundation for improved care and training efforts where needed 
elsewhere.

Refugee crisis in Iraq

    The committee continues to monitor closely the ongoing 
refugee crisis in Iraq, a crisis resulting from the U.S. 
invasion of Iraq. According to the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are approximately 2.8 
million Iraqis displaced internally--1.5 million of them after 
the Samarra bombings in February 2006, and two million more in 
neighboring states, particularly Jordan and Syria.
    The committee notes that the continuing ethno-sectarian 
violence across Iraq is forcing thousands more to leave their 
homes every month. However, the committee notes that recent 
reports from UNHCR indicate that new displacement is continuing 
at a slower pace than in previous years. The slowdown is due to 
a number of factors including closed borders in the region and 
in provinces where internally displaced persons (IDPs) are not 
allowed to enter their territories. Other factors include the 
presence of more homogenous communities, districts, and 
neighborhoods; exhaustion of resources for many families; and a 
decrease in violence. Despite these improvements, given the 
U.S. role and stake in the conflict, the committee believes the 
United States must continue to play a significant role in 
addressing the plight of displaced Iraqis, particularly those 
highly vulnerable religious minorities.
    In recent years, the National Defense Authorization Act has 
included legislation to permit the Department of Defense to 
assist those Iraqis who have helped the United States to 
sustain and manage its presence. In the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
the committee included a provision expanding the Iraqi special 
immigrant visa program. The committee has noted that the 
special immigrant status provisions for certain Iraqis are 
first and foremost intended to help those Iraqis who have 
provided faithful and valuable service to the United States 
Government. The provisions are meant to help and reward those 
Iraqi workers for their assistance to the U.S. Government. 
Under the special immigrant program, applicants are required to 
prove that they have experienced or are experiencing an ongoing 
serious threat as a result of their employment by the U.S. 
Government.
    There is strong evidence that Iraqis who have assisted the 
United States have experienced ongoing serious threats because 
of their service to the United States. Many have been killed, 
or have had family members killed. Others have been threatened. 
The committee expects that, absent unusual circumstances, 
Iraqis who have assisted the United States mission in Iraq will 
meet this statutory standard.

United States Africa Command

    The committee supports the Department of Defense (DOD) 
decision to stand up a new United States Combatant Command for 
the continent of Africa, known as AFRICOM. The committee 
recognizes the increasing strategic significance of Africa and 
that Africa will continue to pose one of the greatest potential 
instability challenges in the world. The large ungoverned areas 
in Africa, HIV/AIDS epidemic, corruption, weak governance, and 
poverty that exist throughout the continent are challenges that 
affect nearly every country in Africa.
    The DOD has referred to AFRICOM as the new model for 
combatant commands as AFRICOM would have all the roles and 
responsibilities of a traditional geographic combatant command, 
including the ability to lead military operations, but would 
also include a broader ``soft power'' mandate to establish and 
maintain a stable security environment. AFRICOM will include a 
larger civilian component than other combatant commands. It 
will incorporate personnel from a variety of U.S. Government 
agencies outside of the Department of Defense. This new 
interagency model will require a significant amount of support 
from non-DOD departments and agencies of the U.S. Government.
    While the committee supports DOD's decision to create a 
combatant command that relies more heavily on a whole 
government approach, the committee is concerned that the other 
departments and agencies of government are not adequately 
resourced to support this model. It is the committee's 
understanding that AFRICOM is already encountering some 
difficulties in staffing portions of the command.
    The committee is also concerned about staffing in various 
United States embassies in Africa. AFRICOM has proposed placing 
liaison officers in each United States Embassy on the continent 
of Africa so that AFRICOM can find ways to support the ongoing 
bilateral activities of the country team. Of the 47 U.S. 
embassies on the African continent, there are 23 with a U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission Director 
and, in many cases, Foreign Service officers are being asked to 
serve simultaneously as political, economic, and public 
diplomacy officers. Given these current staffing challenges, 
the committee recognizes the need for USAID and the Department 
of State to be funded adequately. If funded adequately, other 
government departments and agencies will be able to leverage 
more fully the capacity of AFRICOM to assist our African 
partners to professionalize their respective militaries and 
assist in the delivery of humanitarian and disaster relief.
    The committee is also monitoring closely the progress of 
the African Contingency Operation Training Assistance program, 
the African component of the Global Peace Operations 
Initiative. This program is training African peacekeepers for 
the five African Union-sponsored regional standby brigades. The 
success of the program is critical to enabling African 
countries to develop the security apparatus needed to respond 
to crises across the continent. The committee expects AFRICOM 
to play a more significant role in this program once it reaches 
full operational capability at the beginning of the next fiscal 
year.
                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

Department of Defense strategic human capital plans (sec. 1101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would codify the 
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual 
strategic human capital plan to shape and improve the civilian 
employee workforce of the Department of Defense (DOD).
    Section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) required DOD to develop a 
strategic human capital plan by no later than March 2007. On 
November 6, 2007, more than 8 months after the statutory 
deadline, DOD submitted a plan in response to this requirement. 
However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported 
that the plan did not meet the legislative requirements. 
According to GAO:

          the plan does not address the majority--six of 
        eight--of the congressional reporting requirements. For 
        example, the plan does not include an assessment of 
        current mission-critical competencies, future critical 
        skills and competencies needed, gaps between the 
        current and future needs, or specific recruiting and 
        retention goals, even though these elements are 
        required by the 2006 act. DOD officials acknowledged 
        that the plan they submitted to the committees is 
        incomplete.

    DOD's civilian employee workforce is one of the 
cornerstones of the Department's national security mission. The 
Department's continued failure to conduct adequate planning for 
this workforce could undermine its ability to perform some 
aspects of this critical mission.
Conditional increase in authorized number of Defense Intelligence 
        Senior Executive Service personnel (sec. 1102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
an increase in the number of Defense Intelligence Senior 
Executive Service (DISES) personnel, provided that the rate of 
increase in such personnel does not exceed the rate of increase 
in the number of Senior Executive Service (SES) personnel in 
the Department of Defense (DOD) as a whole and that the 
increase is allocated to components of the intelligence 
community most in needed of additional DISES personnel.
    This is the fourth consecutive year in which the Department 
has requested an increase in the authorized number of DISES 
personnel. In Senate Report 110-77, accompanying S. 1547, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the 
committee stated that it would be premature to approve this 
request until the Department: (1) provides a strategic plan for 
the entire DOD SES workforce, as required by section 1102 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364); (2) presents a comprehensive 
proposal that addresses the need for SES across the entire 
Department, rather than addressing the needs of a single 
community; and (3) justifies the proposed allocation of DISES 
billets within the intelligence community.
    These conditions remain relevant and the Department has not 
yet met them. Rather than deferring the increase for another 
year, however, the provision recommended by the committee would 
make the requested increase contingent upon the Department 
adopting a more comprehensive approach that is consistent with 
the conditions established in last year's committee report.
Enhancement of authorities relating to additional positions under the 
        National Security Personnel System (sec. 1103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
authority of the Department of Defense (DOD) to utilize 
streamlined hiring practices under the National Security 
Personnel System.
    Over the last 7 years, the workload of the Department has 
grown dramatically as a result of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. During that time, the contractor workforce of 
the Department has more than doubled--from less than 750,000 in 
2000 to more than 1.5 million in 2007--while the number of 
civilian employees of the Department has remained virtually 
unchanged at just under 700,000.
    The committee concludes that the Department needs expedited 
hiring authority to bring the DOD civilian employee workforce 
back in line with the critical responsibilities for which it is 
responsible.

Expedited hiring authority for health care professionals of the 
        Department of Defense (sec. 1104)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize, 
for purposes of sections 3304, 5333, and 5753 of title 5, 
United States Code, the Secretary of Defense to designate any 
category of health care position within the Department of 
Defense as a shortage category position, if he determines that 
there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring 
need for such a position. This authority would terminate on 
September 30, 2012.

Election of insurance coverage by federal civilian employees deployed 
        in support of a contingency operation (sec. 1105)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 8702(c) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize 
federal civilian employees deployed in support of a contingency 
operation and Department of Defense employees designated as 
emergency essential to elect to receive automatic life 
insurance coverage upon notification of deployment or 
designation.
    This provision would also amend sections 8714a(b) and 
8714b(b) of title 5, United States Code, to authorize such 
civilian employees to elect optional life insurance or 
additional optional life insurance, respectively, within 60 
days after the employee's date of notification of deployment or 
designation.
    This provision responds to a recommendation by the 
Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in 
Expeditionary Operations in its October 31, 2007 report 
entitled, ``Urgent Reform Required: Army Expeditionary 
Contracting.'' It would offer additional options for life 
insurance to federal civilian employees deployed in support of 
contingency operations, and provide them with both the benefits 
and peace of mind that their service deserves.

Permanent extension of Department of Defense voluntary reduction in 
        force authority (sec. 1106)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3502(f) of title 5, United States Code, to make 
permanent the authority to substitute the voluntary separation 
of an employee for the separation of another employee who would 
otherwise be separated due to a reduction in force.

Four-year extension of authority to make lump sum severance payments 
        with respect to Department of Defense employees (sec. 1107)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United States Code, to extend 
until the end of fiscal year 2014 the authority of the 
Secretary of Defense or the secretaries of the military 
departments to pay an employee the total amount of severance 
pay in one lump sum.

Authority to waive limitations on pay for federal civilian employees 
        working overseas under areas of United States Central Command 
        (sec. 1108)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the head of an executive agency to waive limitations on the 
aggregate of basic and premium pay, and on allowances, 
differentials, bonuses, awards, and similar cash payments 
payable during calendar year 2009 to an employee who performs 
work in an overseas location that is in the area of 
responsibility of the Commander, United States Central Command 
in support of a contingency operation or an operation in 
response to a declared emergency.
    The total amount payable may not exceed the total annual 
compensation payable to the Vice President under section 104 of 
title 3, United States Code. The provision would also authorize 
any amount over the cap to be paid to the employee in a lump 
sum at the beginning of calendar year 2010.
    Under current law, the head of an executive agency may 
waive limitations on the aggregate of basic and premium pay 
payable during calendar year 2008 up to $212,100, and there is 
no provision allowing for the rollover of any pay that exceeds 
this cap.
    Although not limited to Army contracting personnel, the 
provision responds to a recommendation by the Commission on 
Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary 
Operations in its October 31, 2007 report entitled ``Urgent 
Reform Required: Army Expeditionary Contracting,'' aimed at 
providing improved incentives for longer tours for high quality 
civilian contracting personnel deployed in support of 
contingency operations.

Technical amendment relating to definition of professional accounting 
        position for purposes of certification and credentialing 
        standards (sec. 1109)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1599d(e) of title 10, United States Code, to update the 
definition of a ``professional accounting position.''
    Current law refers only to the General Schedule pay plan in 
reference to the Department of Defense's professional 
accounting positions. During the Department's transition to the 
National Security Personnel System, the definition should be 
updated to reflect not only the General Schedule pay plan but 
also this alternative personnel system with new position 
classification.
             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

Increase in amount available for costs of education and training of 
        foreign military forces under Regional Defense Combating 
        Terrorism Fellowship Program (sec. 1201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2249c(b) of title 10, United States Code, to increase 
the amount of funds available for the Regional Defense 
Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program up to $35.0 million.
    The committee notes that this ``parallel'' program to the 
International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, 
authorized under title 22, United States Code, would now be 
funded at about one-third the size of the $90.5 million 
requested for IMET for fiscal year 2009. The committee urges 
the President to address the requirements met by the title 10 
authority by providing additional funding to the Department of 
State programs, so that the agency traditionally authorized to 
set policy and programs for foreign military education and 
training is properly funded to do so.
Authority for distribution to certain foreign personnel of education 
        and training materials and information technology to enhance 
        military interoperability with the armed forces (sec. 1202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary 
of State, to provide electronically-distributed education and 
training materials to the military and civilian personnel of 
friendly foreign governments to enhance interoperability 
between the armed forces and military forces of friendly 
foreign nations. This provision would make permanent the 
authority provided under section 1207 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364), which expires on September 30, 2008.
Extension and expansion of authority for support of special operations 
        to combat terrorism (sec. 1203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1208(a) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), to 
increase the amount the Secretary of Defense may expend during 
any fiscal year to $35.0 million, and to extend the authority 
to fiscal year 2011.
    This provision would also amend the original language to 
clarify the intent of the provision, including changing the 
title of section 1208 from ``Support of military operations to 
combat terrorism'' to ``Support of special operations to combat 
terrorism.''
Modification and extension of authorities relating to program to build 
        the capacity of foreign military forces (sec. 1204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 
modify the authority 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), 
for the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the 
Secretary of State, to build the capacity of foreign military 
forces to conduct counterterrorism operations or to support 
military or stability operations in which U.S. armed forces are 
participating.
    The provision would expand the types of security forces 
eligible to be trained and equipped under section 1206 
authority to include coast guard, border protection, and other 
security forces whose primary mission is counterterrorism 
operations. The committee notes that the restrictions on the 
training of police or other law enforcement forces, codified in 
section 2420 of title 22, United States Code, would apply to 
activities under this authority.
    The provision would increase the limitation on funding for 
building the capacity of foreign forces from $300.0 million to 
$400.0 million per fiscal year and would provide that funds 
available for one fiscal year may be used for programs that 
begin in that fiscal year but end in the next fiscal year. The 
provision also would extend the section 1206 authority for 3 
years through September 30, 2011.
    The train and equip authority under section 1206 was 
initiated as a pilot program to address urgent and emerging 
needs for building the capacity of foreign military forces, 
particularly those of developing or other countries that 
otherwise would be unable to build this capacity on their own. 
This authority is not intended to duplicate or substitute for 
other foreign assistance authorities, nor is it intended to 
sustain train and equip programs over multiple years. In 
extending this authority for an additional 3-year period, the 
committee emphasizes the need for train and equip programs to 
be executed consistent with the legislative intent of the 
section 1206 authority.
    Specifically, the committee is concerned that funds under 
this authority are being used for programs, particularly in 
countries where the terrorist threat is currently low, that 
primarily serve to build counter-narcotics capabilities. While 
recognizing a degree of overlap between counterterrorism and 
counter-narcotics capabilities, the committee urges the 
Department of Defense to fund programs to build counter-
narcotics capabilities using funds and authorities intended to 
support counter-narcotics activities, and, if appropriate, seek 
any necessary modifications to existing counter-narcotics 
authorities to support these activities.
    The committee also recognizes that urgent U.S. national 
security priorities and compelling terrorist threats vary from 
one geographic combatant command to another. The committee 
therefore expects that programs and funding under section 1206 
authority will not be equitably distributed among the 
geographic combatant commands. For example, the committee notes 
that many countries in what will be the U.S. Africa Command 
area of responsibility are vulnerable to terrorist activity and 
have limited resources to address these threats. Therefore, the 
committee views the need for section 1206 assistance in that 
geographic command to be particularly compelling.
Extension of authority and increased funding for security and 
        stabilization assistance (sec. 1205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 
enhance the authority for security and stabilization assistance 
provided under section 1207 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), as 
amended by section 1210 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). Under that 
section, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to provide the 
Secretary of State services, defense articles, or funding to 
support Department of State programs for reconstruction, 
security, or stabilization assistance.
    The provision recommended by the committee would extend the 
authority of section 1207 for 3 years until September 30, 2011, 
and increase the total value of all services, defense articles, 
and funds that may be provided or transferred under this 
section in a fiscal year to $200.0 million.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has inappropriately restricted the uses for which services or 
funds may be provided to the Department of State under section 
1207 security and stabilization assistance authority. The 
Secretary of Defense stated in testimony before the Committee 
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives on April 15, 
2008 that section 1207 authority is primarily for bringing 
civilian expertise to operate alongside or in place of our 
armed forces. The committee is concerned that this is too 
narrow an interpretation of the original administration 
rationale for, and the legislative intent of, section 1207 
authority, which is intended to enable the Secretary of Defense 
to support the provision by the Secretary of State of 
reconstruction, security, or stabilization assistance to a 
foreign country. This could include, for instance, providing 
early civilian resources to avert a crisis that could otherwise 
subsequently require U.S. military forces to assist or 
intervene. The committee encourages the Department of Defense 
to improve its coordination with the Department of State, and 
its consultation with the relevant committees of Congress, in 
formulating and implementing programs under the section 1207 
authority.
Four-year extension of temporary authority to use acquisition and 
        cross-servicing agreements to lend military equipment for 
        personnel protection and survivability (sec. 1206)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority provided under section 1202 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364), as amended by section 1252 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), to loan 
or lease certain items for personnel protection or 
survivability to the military forces of foreign nations 
participating in combined operations with the United States in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, or as part of a peacekeeping operation under 
the United Nations Charter or other international agreement.
    The committee notes that the authority of section 1202 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act allows 
certain significant military equipment to be treated as if it 
were logistical support, supplies, and services under 
Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements. This authority 
provides a temporary solution for meeting the urgent personnel 
protection needs of foreign military forces operating in 
combination with U.S. armed forces in Operation Enduring 
Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other coalition 
peacekeeping operations under an international mandate. The 
committee notes the Department of Defense's interest in making 
this authority permanent and to extend it to other coalition 
operations, including peace operations and stability 
operations. The committee is concerned about making the 
treatment of significant military equipment in this manner 
permanent, and about extending this temporary authority to 
other kinds of operations where the requirement for coalition 
partners to have such equipment is less exigent. The committee 
urges the Department to consider alternatives to using 
Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements for these purposes, 
as such agreements are not intended for the loan or lease of 
significant military equipment.
Authority for use of funds for non-conventional assisted recovery 
        capabilities (sec. 1207)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the commander of a combatant command, with the concurrence of 
the relevant chief of mission, to expend funds in fiscal years 
2009 and 2010 to establish, develop, and maintain non-
conventional assisted recovery (NAR) capabilities in a foreign 
country if the commander determines that expenditure of such 
funds for that purpose is necessary in connection with support 
of NAR efforts in that foreign country. NAR is defined as 
recovery of isolated personnel in enemy-held, hostile, or 
uncertain areas using indigenous/surrogate personnel. NAR is 
used when conventional methods of personnel recovery are 
unavailable to, or unsuitable for, the combatant commander. The 
total amount of funds expended in each fiscal year may not 
exceed $20.0 million.
    The Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional 
defense committees in writing within 48 hours of the use of 
such authority.
    Not later than 30 days after the close of each fiscal year 
this provision is in effect, the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
describing the support provided, including the amount of funds 
expended, a description of the recipient of the support, and 
the assistance provided by the recipient.

     Subtitle B--Department of Defense Participation in Bilateral, 
            Multilateral, and Regional Cooperation Programs


Availability across fiscal years of funds for military-to-military 
        contacts and comparable activities (sec. 1211)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 168(e) of title 10, United States Code, by making funds 
available for programs or activities under this section that 
begin in a fiscal year and end in the following fiscal year.

Enhancement of authorities relating to Department of Defense regional 
        centers for security studies (sec. 1212)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 184(f) of title 10, United States Code, to make funds 
available for programs and activities that begin in a fiscal 
year and end in the following fiscal year, effective October 1, 
2008.
    As a pilot program, the committee would also authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement costs for 
nongovernmental and international organization personnel 
participating in regional center activities during fiscal years 
2009 and 2010. In order to do so, the Secretary of Defense must 
determine that attendance of such personnel without 
reimbursement is in the national security interests of the 
United States. The amount that may be waived may not exceed 
$1.0 million.
    The annual report submitted by the Secretary of Defense for 
fiscal years 2011 and 2012 would include information on the 
attendance of personnel of nongovernmental and international 
organizations who participate in activities of the regional 
centers during the preceding fiscal year, including information 
on costs incurred by the United States for the participation of 
personnel of nongovernmental and international organizations.

Payment of personnel expenses for multilateral cooperation programs 
        (sec. 1213)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1051 of title 10, United States Code, by expanding 
authority for bilateral and regional programs to cover 
multilateral programs, and to permit funding to be available 
for programs that begin in one fiscal year and end in another.

Participation of the Department of Defense in multinational military 
        centers of excellence (sec. 1214)

    The committee recommends a provision that would give 
permanent authority to the Secretary of Defense, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to authorize Department 
of Defense civilian and military personnel to participate in 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) multinational 
military centers of excellence. This authority was previously 
provided for fiscal year 2007 under section 1205 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), and extended through fiscal year 2008 
under section 1204 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
remains interested in expanding this authority beyond NATO-
accredited multinational military centers of excellence. The 
committee believes that the NATO-accredited multinational 
military centers of excellence offer recognized expertise and 
experience that supports alliance transformation. Participation 
in these NATO centers benefits DOD military and civilian 
personnel, and NATO capabilities overall, by providing 
opportunities to enhance education and training, improve 
interoperability and capabilities, assist in doctrine 
development, and/or test and validate concepts through 
experimentation. The committee has yet to be convinced that 
expanding the authority under this section to unspecified or 
currently non-existent non-NATO centers of excellence would 
offer comparable benefits to the United States. The committee 
further notes that with respect to centers of excellence 
focused on training international peacekeepers, the Global 
Peace Operations Initiative provides the appropriate legal 
authority for U.S. participation in the training of foreign 
nation peacekeepers, and separate DOD authority for the same 
purpose is neither necessary nor desirable.

             Subtitle C--Other Authorities and Limitations


Waiver of certain sanctions against North Korea (sec. 1221)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
President with limited authority to waive, with respect to 
North Korea, the application of sanctions under 102(b) of the 
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1(b)). The President 
would be required to notify Congress 15 days in advance of 
exercising such waiver authority. In addition, the provision 
would require the President to submit an annual report listing 
all the waivers granted during the preceding year and describe 
in detail the progress being made by North Korea in 
implementing of the commitments included in the Joint Statement 
of September 19, 2005 to abandon all nuclear weapons, existing 
nuclear programs, and all other programs associated with the 
elimination of the ability of North Korea to develop, deploy, 
transfer, or maintain weapons of mass destruction or their 
delivery systems.
    The committee notes that waiver authority is necessary to 
enable the Departments of Energy and Defense to carry out work 
needed to implement the Joint Statement.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


Extension and modification of updates on report on claims relating to 
        the bombing of the Labelle Discotheque (sec. 1231)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
quarterly report on the status of negotiations between the 
Government of Libya and United States claimants in connection 
with the bombing of the Labelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany, 
that occurred in April 1986. The reporting requirement is an 
extension of section 1225 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
section 1261 in the NDAA for FY 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
    On April 5, 1986, Libya directed its agents to execute a 
terrorist attack in West Berlin for the sole purpose of killing 
as many American military personnel as possible. The Labelle 
Discotheque was known to be frequented by large numbers of U.S. 
military personnel. The bombing of the discotheque occurred at 
a time when 260 people, including U.S. military personnel, were 
present. When the bomb detonated, two U.S. soldiers were killed 
and over 90 U.S. soldiers were severely injured.
    In 2002, the American Labelle victims and the families of 
deceased soldiers filed a lawsuit in the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia. Since that time, the 
Government of Libya has settled the claims of the German 
victims of the LaBelle bombing and the claims of the victims of 
the Libyan bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, 
Scotland.
    Since the beginning of 2008, Libya has shown renewed 
interest in negotiations with a number of claimant groups, 
including the Labelle claimants. The committee continues to 
monitor closely the details surrounding the cases of Labelle 
claimants and the other major claims against the Government of 
Libya and hopes this matter will be brought to a close in short 
order.

Report on utilization of certain global partnership authorities (sec. 
        1232)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
State, to submit by December 31, 2010, a report on the 
implementation of certain Building Global Partnership 
authorities from the date of enactment of this Act until 
September 30, 2010. The Building Global Partnership authorities 
covered by the report would consist of the authority for 
building the capacity of foreign military forces under section 
1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 (Public Law 109-163), as amended; the authority for 
security and stabilization assistance under section 1207 of 
Public Law 109-163, as amended; and the authority to provide 
urgent and unanticipated civic assistance under the Combatant 
Commander Initiative Fund under section 166a(b)(6) of title 10, 
United States Code, as amended by section 902 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(109-364).
    The committee notes that security cooperation, 
stabilization assistance, and humanitarian relief in response 
to unanticipated emergencies are critical foreign policy tools 
for advancing U.S. national security interests worldwide. The 
implementation of certain of the Building Global Partnership 
authorities covered by this report has benefited from close 
cooperation between the Department of Defense and the 
Department of State. The committee encourages these departments 
to continue to pursue an interagency approach in the 
formulation and execution of projects under these authorities.
  TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER 
                              SOVIET UNION

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec. 
        1301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would define the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds 
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, 
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$434.1 million, an increase of $20.0 million above the budget 
request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. 
This provision would also authorize specific amounts for each 
CTR program element, require notification to Congress 15 days 
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal 
year 2009 funds, and require notification to Congress 15 days 
before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal 
year 2009 funds in excess of the specific amount authorized for 
each CTR program element.
    The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for 
new activities in states outside of the former Soviet Union, 
$9.0 million for nuclear weapons storage security in Russia for 
additional automated inventory control management systems, and 
$1.0 million for additional expenses associated with the 
Russian chemical weapons destruction activities.
    The committee continues to believe that one of the highest 
priorities of the CTR program is destroying Russian chemical 
weapons munitions at the destruction facility in Shchuch'ye, 
Russia. The CTR program has entered into an arrangement with 
the Russian Government that assigns responsibility to Russia to 
complete the U.S. funded destruction facility and begin 
operations. Timely startup and safe operation of the facility 
is essential and continues to be a matter of concern to the 
committee. As a result, the committee directs the Secretary to 
notify the congressional defense committees immediately if 
there is any delay or other problem in the startup of either 
the Russian funded destruction facility or the U.S. funded 
destruction facility.
                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of tables
    This title contains funding authorizations for working 
capital and revolving funds, the Defense Health Program, the 
destruction of chemical munitions, drug interdiction and 
counterdrug activities, the Department of Defense Inspector 
General, and other programs which contain elements of more than 
one type of traditional funding account (such as procurement or 
operation and maintenance) inside a single account.
    This title also reflects savings from lower inflation that 
affect multiple accounts and titles within this Act, 
legislative proposals regarding the national defense stockpile, 
and authorizes trust fund expenditures for the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home, which is outside the national defense budget 
function.
    The following table provides the program-level detailed 
guidance for the funding authorized in title XIV of this Act. 
The table also displays the funding requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 2009 budget request for these 
programs, and indicates those programs for which the committee 
either increased or decreased the requested amounts. This table 
is incorporated by reference into this Act as provided in 
section 1002 of this Act. The Department of Defense may not 
exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables or, 
if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in 
budget justification documents of the Department of Defense) 
without a reprogramming action in accordance with established 
procedures. Unless noted in this report, funding changes to the 
budget request are made without prejudice.


                     Subtitle A--Military Programs


Working capital funds (sec. 1401)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
fiscal year 2009 funds for Defense Working Capital Funds.

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
fiscal year 2009 funds for the National Defense Sealift Fund.

Defense Health Program (sec. 1403)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
fiscal year 2009 funds for the Defense Health Program.

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, defense (sec. 1404)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funds for fiscal year 2009 for the destruction of chemical 
agents and munitions, including funds for procurement; 
research, development, test, and evaluation; and operation and 
maintenance. The provision would authorize $1.5 billion, the 
amount requested by the Department of Defense.

Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide (sec. 1405)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities 
of the Department of Defense.

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1406)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
fiscal year 2009 funds for the Defense Inspector General.

Reduction in certain authorizations due to savings from lower inflation 
        (sec. 1407)

    The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 
amounts authorized in division A of this Act by $1.0 billion to 
bring the inflation assumptions applicable to purchases by the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009 in line with the 
economic assumptions previously adopted by the Senate.
    The Office of Management and Budget assumed an inflation 
rate of 2.0 percent in its fiscal year 2009 budget submission. 
However, the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of 
inflation for 2009 is 1.7 percent, or 0.3 percentage points 
lower than the administration's estimate. The Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (S. Con. Res. 70) 
adopted by the Senate on March 13, 2008, was based on the 
economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office.

                Subtitle B--Armed Forces Retirement Home


Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 
        1421)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$63.0 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2009 from the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation and 
maintenance of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters


Responsibilities for chemical demilitarization Citizens' Advisory 
        Commissions in Colorado and Kentucky (sec. 1431)

    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer 
responsibility for the chemical demilitarization Citizens' 
Advisory Commissions in Colorado and Kentucky from the 
Secretary of the Army to the Program Manager for Assembled 
Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA). This would be consistent 
with the overall responsibility of the ACWA Program Manager for 
other aspects of the ACWA program and facilities.
    The provision would also establish requirements to ensure 
that the newly transferred Citizens' Advisory Commissions would 
work in an effective manner.
    The committee notes that each chemical demilitarization 
facility has a Citizens' Advisory Commission to serve as a 
mechanism for input and communication between the affected 
States, local communities, and the Federal Government. The 
chemical destruction facilities at Pueblo, Colorado and Blue 
Grass, Kentucky are the only two ACWA sites, and are managed by 
the ACWA Program Manager, rather than by the Secretary of the 
Army. Despite this separate management structure for the ACWA 
sites, the Citizens' Advisory Commissions for Colorado and 
Kentucky have been managed by the Secretary of the Army. This 
provision would correct this disparity.

Modification of definition of ``Department of Defense Sealift Vessel'' 
        for purposes of the National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1432)

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
intent of Congress on what vessels the Navy should acquire and 
manage within the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF).
    The fiscal year 2009 budget request included $68.7 million 
within the NDSF for various research and development 
activities, including $41.8 million for the Maritime 
Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF(F)). This amount included 
$5.4 million for research and development on amphibious assault 
replacement ships which are to be assigned to the MPF(F), 
designated MPF(F) LHA(R). The NDSF request also included $348.3 
million for advance procurement for the first MPF(F) LHA(R).
    The committee does not agree with funding development and 
procurement for amphibious assault ships within the NDSF. This 
ship type was specifically not included within the scope of 
sealift vessels eligible for NDSF, defined within section 2218 
of title 10, United States Code.

                              Budget Items


LHA(R) advance procurement and research and development

    The fiscal year 2009 budget request included $68.7 million 
within the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for various 
research and development activities, including $41.8 million 
for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF(F)). This 
amount included $5.4 million for research and development on 
amphibious assault replacement ships which are to be assigned 
to the MPF(F), designated MPF(F) LHA(R). The NDSF request also 
included $348.3 million for advance procurement for the first 
MPF(F) LHA(R).
    The committee does not agree with funding development and 
procurement for amphibious assault ships within the NDSF. This 
ship type was specifically not included within the scope of 
sealift vessels eligible for NDSF, defined within section 2218 
of title 10, United States Code. The committee has included a 
provision (described elsewhere) that would clarify the intent 
of Congress on what vessels should be acquired and managed 
within the NDSF.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.4 
million in PE 48042N, and a corresponding increase of $5.4 
million in PE 64567N for MPF(F) LHA(R) ship contract design; 
and a decrease of $348.3 million in PE 48042N, and an 
adjustment in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), line 16, 
for LHA(R) advance procurement.

Traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder initiative

    The budget request included $38.1 million in PE 63115HP for 
medical development. The committee notes that dealing with 
traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post traumatic stress disorder 
(PTSD) are among the highest priority medical research 
challenges facing the Department of Defense. In order to 
support continued efforts to develop diagnoses and treatments 
for TBI and PTSD, the committee recommends an additional $3.0 
million in PE 63115HP for TBI and PTSD research initiatives, 
including support of efforts to develop processes, procedures, 
and the application of technologies to gather baseline 
information on military personnel during pre-combat deployment 
and post-combat diagnosis of TBI and PTSD.

Department of Defense Inspector General

    The budget request included $246.4 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Inspector General (OIG). The committee is concerned that 
funding levels for independent audit and investigative 
functions should keep pace with the demand for these services. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a total increase of $26.0 
million in OMDW for the OIG, of which $24.0 million is for 
operation and maintenance and $2.0 million is for procurement.
    The OIG audits, investigates, inspects, and evaluates the 
programs and operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), and 
recommends policies and process improvements that promote 
economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in DOD 
programs and operations. The committee notes the dramatic 
growth in the number and cost of Department contracts for 
operations, procurement, research, and construction within the 
United States and around the world. The committee understands 
that the OIG plans to conduct 83 audits related to military 
operations and Department of Defense contracting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan over the next few years. The increase recommended 
by the committee should enable the OIG to conduct oversight 
related to the global war on terror, contract management and 
acquisitions, and support audits to identify potential waste, 
fraud, and abuse.

                        Item of Special Interest


Completion of destruction of chemical weapons stockpile

    The committee remains disappointed in the notification from 
the Secretary of Defense on April 10, 2006, that the United 
States does not expect to meet its obligation under the 
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to destroy its chemical 
weapons stockpile by the extended deadline of April 29, 2012.
    The committee notes the commitment of the Secretary in the 
April 10, 2006 notification to ``continue working diligently to 
minimize the time to complete destruction without sacrificing 
safety and security,'' and ``to continue requesting resources 
needed to complete destruction as close to April 29, 2012 as 
practicable.''
    The committee continues to urge the Department of Defense 
to fulfill this commitment by taking all necessary and 
appropriate steps to dispose of the U.S. chemical weapons 
stockpile by the 2012 Chemical Weapons Convention deadline, or 
as soon thereafter as possible, and to request the funding 
needed in future budget requests to accelerate the chemical 
weapons stockpile destruction schedule to meet the United 
States' legal obligations under the Convention.
    In order to meet the destruction deadline under the 
Convention at all or most of its chemical demilitarization 
facilities, the Department must consider options for 
accelerated destruction and increased funding levels for the 
program.
    Section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) included a requirement 
for the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress semiannual 
reports on implementation by the United States of its chemical 
weapons destruction obligations under the CWC, including a 
description of the options for accelerating such destruction 
and the funding required for each option. Section 8119 of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-116), included a similar reporting requirement 
and mandated that the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile must be 
destroyed no later than December 31, 2017.
    The committee will continue to monitor closely the 
Department's compliance with the Convention's destruction 
deadline, as well as the destruction deadline established in 
section 8119 of Public Law 110-116.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATIONS IN 
                              AFGHANISTAN

Overview
    The President's budget requested $70.0 billion in emergency 
funding in the national defense budget function for operations 
in Afghanistan and Iraq. The request did not allocate specific 
funding to either operation, nor to any specific budget titles, 
accounts, or programs. The committee bill separates funding for 
these operations. This title authorizes $19.9 billion in 
funding for operations in Afghanistan. Title XVI authorizes 
funding for operations in Iraq.
    Funding authorized in this title is for the incremental 
costs of operations in Afghanistan. As described later in this 
report, any such funds not designated by Congress for a 
specific program may not be obligated until 15 days after the 
Secretary of Defense transmits to the congressional defense 
committees a report setting forth the proposed allocation of 
such funds at the line-item level.
Explanation of tables
    The summary table that follows describes the funding 
authorized in this bill for operations in Afghanistan.


Purpose (sec. 1501)

    This section states the purpose of this title, which is to 
authorize additional appropriations for operations in 
Afghanistan for fiscal year 2009.
    This title authorizes funding for military personnel, 
operation and maintenance, procurement, research and 
development, working capital funds, health care, and other 
programs normally authorized in division A of this Act. 
Additional war-related authorizations for military construction 
programs are contained in title XXIX of this Act.

Army procurement (sec. 1502)

    This section would authorize an additional $1.8 billion for 
fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Army.

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1503)

    This section would authorize an additional $387.5 million 
for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the 
Navy and the Marine Corps.

Air Force procurement (sec. 1504)

    This section would authorize an additional $575.0 million 
for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the 
Air Force.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1505)

    The budget request included a total of $496.3 million for 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), of 
which $306.3 million was for the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) attack the network line of 
operation, $88.3 million was for the JIEDDO train the force 
line of operation, and $101.7 million was for the JIEDDO staff 
and infrastructure line of operation.
    The committee recommends a transfer of $496.3 million in 
the JIEDDF to titles XV and XVI of this Act. The committee 
believes that JIEDDO's expenses are war-related and should be 
accounted for in the appropriate war-related accounts in titles 
XV and XVI of this Act. Therefore, the committee recommends 
increases of $750.0 million for all of JIEDDO's activities in 
support of operations in Afghanistan.

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1506)

    This section would authorize an additional $62.5 million 
for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the 
defense agencies and the United States Special Operations 
Command, plus an additional $100.0 million for Mine Resistant 
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1507)

    This section would authorize an additional $60.0 million 
for fiscal year 2009 war-related research and development 
expenses.

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1508)

    This section would authorize an additional $11.8 billion 
for fiscal year 2009 war-related operation and maintenance 
expenses of the military services, the defense agencies, and 
the United States Special Operations Command.

Military personnel (sec. 1509)

    This section would authorize an additional $750.0 million 
for fiscal year 2009 war-related military personnel expenses of 
the active and reserve components, including mobilization costs 
for reserve and National Guard forces.

Working capital funds (sec. 1510)

    This section would authorize an additional $250.0 million 
for the fiscal year 2009 war-related working capital fund 
expenses of the Department of Defense.

Other Department of Defense programs (sec. 1511)

    This section would authorize additional funding for fiscal 
year 2009 war-related expenses of the Defense Health Program 
and for counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1512)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
an additional $3.0 billion for the fiscal year 2009 war-related 
expenses of the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. The provision 
would also specify the authorized use of these funds, authorize 
the transfer of funds from this account to other accounts of 
the Department of Defense, provide for prior notice to Congress 
before obligation of these funds, and require quarterly reports 
on the specific use of these funds.

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1513)

    This section would provide that the amounts authorized for 
war-related purposes in this title are in addition to the 
amounts otherwise authorized in this Act for the base budget.

Special transfer authority (sec. 1514)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer of up to $3.0 billion of war-related funding 
authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title 
and title XVI. This special transfer authority is in addition 
to the general transfer authority contained in section 1001 of 
this Act, but the same reprogramming procedures applicable to 
transfers under section 1001 would also apply to transfers 
under this section. No more than $300.0 million could be 
transferred to the Iraq Security Forces Fund under this 
authority.

Limitation on use of funds (sec. 1515)

    The President did not allocate any of the funding in his 
budget request for Iraq and Afghanistan to specific programs. 
This section would provide that any funding in this title not 
designated by Congress for a specific program could not be 
obligated until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense 
transmits to the congressional defense committees a report 
setting forth the proposed allocation of such funds at the 
line-item level.

Requirement for separate display of budget for Afghanistan (sec. 1516)

    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
identify separately the funding requested for operations in 
Afghanistan in any future annual or supplemental budget 
request.
    The committee notes that on February 8, 2008, Secretary of 
Defense Robert Gates stated that, ``I worry that for many 
Europeans the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are confused * * 
* I think that they combine the two * * * Many of them, I 
think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project 
that to Afghanistan, and do not understand the very different--
for them--the very different kind of threat.'' The committee 
shares this concern, and believes this provision would help 
address this public perception problem.
TITLE XVI--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATIONS IN 
                                  IRAQ

Overview
    The President's budget requested $70.0 billion in emergency 
funding in the national defense budget function for operations 
in Afghanistan and Iraq. The request did not allocate specific 
funding to either operation, nor to any specific budget titles, 
accounts, or programs. The committee bill separates funding for 
these operations. This title authorizes $49.6 billion in 
funding for operations in Iraq. Funding for operations in 
Afghanistan is authorized in title XV.
    Funding authorized in this title is for the incremental 
costs of operations in Iraq. As described later in this report, 
any such funds not designated by Congress for a specific 
program may not be obligated until 15 days after the Secretary 
of Defense transmits to the congressional defense committees a 
report setting forth the proposed allocation of such funds at 
the line-item level.
Explanation of tables
    The summary table that follows describes the funding 
authorized in this bill for operations in Iraq.


Purpose (sec. 1601)

    This section states the purpose of this title, which is to 
authorize additional appropriations for operations in Iraq for 
fiscal year 2009.
    This title authorizes funding for military personnel, 
operation and maintenance, procurement, research and 
development, working capital funds, health care, and other 
programs normally authorized in division A of this Act. 
Additional war-related authorizations for military construction 
programs are contained in title XXIX of this Act.

Army procurement (sec. 1602)

    This section would authorize an additional $5.5 billion for 
fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Army.

Navy and Marine Corps procurement (sec. 1603)

    This section would authorize an additional $1.2 billion for 
fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the Navy 
and the Marine Corps.

Air Force procurement (sec. 1604)

    This section would authorize an additional $925.0 million 
for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the 
Air Force.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1605)

    The budget request included a total of $496.3 million for 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF), of 
which $306.3 million was for the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) attack the network line of 
operation, $88.3 million was for the JIEDDO train the force 
line of operation, and $101.7 million was for the JIEDDO staff 
and infrastructure line of operation.
    The committee recommends a transfer of $496.3 million in 
the JIEDDF to titles XV and XVI of this Act. The committee 
believes that JIEDDO's expenses are war-related and should be 
accounted for in the appropriate war-related accounts in titles 
XV and XVI of this Act. Therefore, the committee recommends 
increases of approximately $2.3 million for all of JIEDDO's 
activities in support of operations in Iraq.
    Further, the committee directs that JIEDDO provide $5.0 
million for the Marine Corps to continue research and 
development on the breeding and training of dogs for the 
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) mission and other missions in 
support of infantry operations, and $5.0 million for the Army's 
Maneuver Support Command to field an IED dog capability in 
cooperation with the Marine Corps.
    The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory has developed a 
very innovative program to train dogs to work off-leash to 
detect IED and explosive caches. In contrast to other attempts 
to use dogs for this mission, the Marine Corps was able to find 
a breed that can stay on task for the length of patrols, even 
in extreme heat, and that can be trained to operate effectively 
with minimally trained handlers. These dogs have been deployed 
to Iraq and have performed superbly. The Marine Corps believes 
that these dogs have saved lives and enhanced the effectiveness 
of supported units.
    The committee believes that the Army could benefit from a 
similar program and understands that the Army's Maneuver 
Support Command at Fort Leonard Wood is interested in working 
with the Marine Corps.
    In addition, the committee directs that JIEDDO fund at a 
level of not less than $60.0 million the ongoing efforts of the 
Irregular Warfare Support (IWS) office under the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity 
Conflict. The IWS program leverages ongoing research efforts of 
the United States Special Operations Command, the military 
departments, defense agencies, and other federal agencies to 
analyze, modify, design, and demonstrate enduring technical and 
operational capabilities for irregular warfare. IWS projects 
include developing capabilities to attack adversaries' 
organizations, their infrastructure and sanctuaries, financing, 
support operations, the motivations of their members, and their 
propaganda. The IWS also utilizes multi-disciplinary approaches 
that combine intelligence, operations, and technology.

Defense-wide activities procurement (sec. 1606)

    This section would authorize an additional $187.5 million 
for fiscal year 2009 procurement of war-related items for the 
defense agencies and the United States Special Operations 
Command, plus an additional $500.0 million for Mine Resistant 
Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1607)

    This section would authorize an additional $140.0 million 
for fiscal year 2009 war-related research and development 
expenses.

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1608)

    This section would authorize an additional $35.2 billion 
for fiscal year 2009 war-related operation and maintenance 
expenses of the military services, the defense agencies, and 
the United States Special Operations Command.

Military personnel (sec. 1609)

    This section would authorize an additional $2.3 billion for 
fiscal year 2009 war-related military personnel expenses of the 
active and reserve components, including mobilization costs for 
reserve and National Guard forces.

Working capital funds (sec. 1610)

    This section would authorize an additional $750.0 million 
for the fiscal year 2009 war-related working capital fund 
expenses of the Department of Defense.

Defense Health Program (sec. 1611)

    This section would authorize additional funding for fiscal 
year 2009 war-related expenses of the Defense Health Program.

Iraq Freedom Fund (sec. 1612)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
an additional $150.0 million for the fiscal year 2009 war-
related expenses of the Iraq Freedom Fund. The provision would 
also authorize the transfer of funds from this account to other 
accounts of the Department of Defense and require prior notice 
to Congress before obligation of these funds.

Iraq Security Forces Fund (sec. 1613)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
an additional $200.0 million for the fiscal year 2009 war-
related expenses of the Iraq Security Forces Fund. The 
provision would also specify the authorized use of these funds, 
authorize the transfer of funds from this account to other 
accounts of the Department of Defense, provide for prior notice 
to Congress before obligation of these funds, and require 
quarterly reports on the specific use of these funds.
    The amount authorized for this program would be 
dramatically reduced from the fiscal year 2008 level in light 
of the ability of the Iraqi Government to finance its own 
security forces given the significant increases in Iraqi oil 
revenues and the large balances of unspent Iraqi funds. Funding 
authorized for this program is intended only for areas where 
the United States is in a position to make a unique 
contribution to Iraqi security, particularly in the area of 
training. No funds are authorized for expenditure on 
infrastructure programs for the Iraqi security forces for 
fiscal year 2009. The committee believes the Iraqi Government 
is well able to afford to finance its own infrastructure needs 
at this point.

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1614)

    This section would provide that the amounts authorized for 
war-related purposes in this title are in addition to the 
amounts otherwise authorized in this Act for the base budget.

Limitation on use of funds (sec. 1615)

    The President did not allocate any of the funding in his 
budget request for Iraq and Afghanistan to specific programs. 
This section would provide that any funding in this title not 
designated by Congress for a specific program could not be 
obligated until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense 
transmits to the congressional defense committees a report 
setting forth the proposed allocation of such funds at the 
line-item level.

Contributions by the Government of Iraq to large-scale infrastructure 
        projects, combined operations, and other activities in Iraq 
        (sec. 1616)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of funds authorized by this Act to pay for any large-
scale infrastructure project commenced after the date of 
enactment of this Act. The provision would also require the 
United States Government to begin negotiating an agreement with 
the Government of Iraq to share the costs of combined 
operations between the Government of Iraq and Multinational 
Forces Iraq. The provision would further require that the 
United States Government act to ensure that Iraqi funds are 
used to pay the costs of training, equipping, and sustaining 
the Iraqi Security Forces and the costs associated with the 
Sons of Iraq.
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of funding tables
    Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military 
construction projects of the Department of Defense. It includes 
funding authorizations for the construction and operation of 
military family housing as well as military construction for 
the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment 
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure 
accounts that fund military construction, environmental 
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the 
decisions in base closure rounds.
    The following tables provide the project-level 
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized 
in division B of this Act, other than the war-related projects 
authorized in title XXIX, and summarize that funding by 
account. Funding for base closure projects is summarized in the 
table that follows, and is explained in additional detail in 
the table included in title XXVII of this report. These tables 
are incorporated by reference into this Act as provided in 
section 1002 of this Act.
    The fiscal year 2009 budget requested $24.4 billion for 
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, 
$11.7 billion was requested for military construction, $3.2 
billion for the construction and operation of family housing, 
and $9.5 for base closure activities, including $9.1 billion to 
implement the results of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC) round.
    Excluding the war-related projects in title XXIX, the 
committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 
military construction and housing programs totaling $24.8 
billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations 
reflects the committee's continuing commitment to invest in the 
recapitalization of Department of Defense facilities and 
infrastructure. The committee recommends an increase of $596.6 
million for additional construction projects, and a reduction 
of $191.6 million in unjustified or lower priority projects, 
for a net increase of $405.0 million to the amount requested 
for military construction and family housing.


Short title (sec. 2001)

    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
division B of this Act as the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by 
        law (sec. 2002)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military 
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing 
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization infrastructure program, as October 1, 2011, or the 
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2012, whichever is later.

Effective date (sec. 2003)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX 
of this Act take effect on October 1, 2008 or the date of 
enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
                            TITLE XXI--ARMY

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $4.6 billion for military construction and $1.4 billion for 
family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$4.6 billion for military construction and $1.4 billion for 
family housing for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee has eliminated the military construction 
funding proposed for a commissary at Fort Riley, Kansas, which 
is inconsistent with the longstanding practice of not using 
military construction funding for revenue-generating non-
appropriated fund projects.
    The committee has fully authorized the construction of a 
command and battle center at Weisbaden, Germany, but has 
reduced the fiscal year 2009 funding for this project by $42.6 
million. This reduction is made without prejudice. The 
committee expects the Army to request the balance of the 
funding needed to complete this project in the fiscal year 2010 
budget request.
    The committee has fully funded the Army's request for 
$125.0 million to begin construction of a family housing 
complex at Camp Humphreys in the Republic of Korea. The 
committee understands the Army is pursuing leasing options with 
the private sector as an alternative way to meet this 
requirement.
    Should this alternative approach show sufficient promise 
and maturity before the conference report on this legislation 
is enacted, the committee is open to alternative uses of these 
construction funds, if such alternative uses would more quickly 
and effectively fulfill the requirement for accompanied housing 
in Korea.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the active component of the 
Army for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on 
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction and planning and design of family housing 
units for the Army for fiscal year 2009. It would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices and housing maintenance 
and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2009 to improve existing Army family 
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. This provision 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized 
for military construction and family housing projects for the 
active-duty component of the Army. The State list contained in 
this report is the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 
        2105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain Army fiscal year 2005 military 
construction projects until October 1, 2009, or the date of 
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 
for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. These extensions were 
requested by the Department of Defense.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2006 project (sec. 
        2106)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization for an Army fiscal year 2006 military 
construction project at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, until 
October 1, 2009, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing 
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2010, whichever 
is later. This extension was requested by the Department of 
Defense.
                            TITLE XXII--NAVY

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $3.1 billion for military construction and $758.9 million 
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal 
year 2009.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$3.1 billion for military construction and $758.9 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee has deleted funding for a classified project 
for which adequate justification was not provided.
    The committee has also deleted the funding requested for an 
aircraft maintenance hangar in Djibouti. The committee values 
the relationship between the United States and the Government 
of Djibouti, and supports the defensive and offensive 
operational objectives of Combined Joint Task Force--Horn of 
Africa (CJTF-HOA) currently operating at Camp Lemonier, 
Djibouti. However, the committee reiterates two concerns 
expressed by the conferees in the statement of managers to 
accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). First, the United States still 
lacks a long-term lease for our facilities in Djibouti, thus 
calling into question the wisdom of making long-term 
investments at this time. The committee believes such improved 
lease terms can be achieved.
    Second, a coherent strategy of basing and operations for 
the new U.S. Africa Command remains a work in progress. The 
committee believes such a strategy should be in place to 
provide a strategic context for investment plans in Djibouti or 
other nations in Africa. While the commander of U.S. Africa 
Command has stated that CJTF-HOA will have an ``enduring'' 
presence in Djibouti, the President has stated that it is not 
our intent to have military bases in Africa. The committee 
believes plans for the U.S. Africa Command require 
clarification before Congress funds construction of enduring 
facilities in Africa.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction and planning and design of family housing 
units for the Navy for fiscal year 2009. It would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices and housing maintenance 
and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2009 to improve existing Navy family 
housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy 
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. 
This provision would also provide an overall limit on the 
amount authorized for military construction and family housing 
projects for the active-duty components of the Navy and the 
Marine Corps. The State list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2005 project 
        inside the United States (sec. 2205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (division B of Public Law 108-375) to increase 
the project authorization for a strategic weapons facility at 
Bangor, Washington, by $16.7 million. This increase was 
requested by the Department of Defense.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2007 
        projects inside the United States (sec. 2206)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (division B of Public Law 109-364) to increase 
the authorization for a project at Suitland, Maryland by $8.3 
million and the authorization for a project at Whidbey Island, 
Washington by $2.8 million. These increases were requested by 
the Department of Defense.
                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $934.9 million for military construction and $995.3 million 
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.1 billion for military construction and $995.3 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee has deleted funding for a close air support 
parking apron project in Qatar. The committee notes that the 
Department of Defense is now requesting that this project be 
funded using fiscal year 2008 supplemental funds.
    The committee is concerned that the very low levels of 
funding contained in the fiscal year 2009 future years defense 
program for the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard do not 
represent adequate investment levels in the facilities of the 
reserve components of the Air Force. The committee urges the 
Air Force to allocate more funding to modernizing its reserve 
component facilities than the levels projected in this year's 
plan.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2009. 
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction and planning and design of family housing 
units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2009. It would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices and housing maintenance 
and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for fiscal year 2009 to improve existing Air Force 
family housing units.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. This provision 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized 
for military construction and family housing projects for the 
active-duty component of the Air Force. The State list 
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 
projects authorized at each location.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 
        2305)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2006 military 
construction projects until October 1, 2009, or the date of 
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 
for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. These extensions were 
requested by the Department of Defense.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2005 projects (sec. 
        2306)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain Air Force fiscal year 2005 military 
construction projects until October 1, 2009, or the date of 
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 
for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. These extensions were 
requested by the Department of Defense.

                              Budget Item


Planning and design, Air Force

    The committee directs that the amount of $1.8 million, 
added to the authorization of appropriations for planning and 
design for the Air Force be used to complete the design of a 
logistics readiness center at Mountain Home Air Force Base, 
Idaho, and that $810,000 added to this same account be used to 
complete the design of a missile service complex at F.E. Warren 
Air Force Base, Wyoming.
                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.8 billion for military construction for the defense 
agencies, $134.3 million for chemical demilitarization 
construction, and $54.6 million for family housing for the 
defense agencies, the Family Housing Improvement Fund, and the 
Homeowners Assistance Program for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.8 billion for military construction, $144.3 million for 
chemical demilitarization construction, and $54.6 million for 
the three family housing programs for fiscal year 2009.
    The committee bill would authorize the construction of a 
European-based missile defense system, including an interceptor 
site in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic, subject 
to the conditions of section 232 of this Act that would 
restrict the obligation of funds for this system until 
agreements are ratified by the host nations. The committee is 
concerned that the Department of Defense may be relying too 
heavily on the prime contractor to carry out all the major 
phases of this system, from requirements definition to 
construction to operation of the system. The committee urges 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics to carefully review the acquisition process being 
used for this program, and to ensure the Department of Defense 
complies with the requirements of section 2851 of title 10, 
United States Code.
    Finally, the committee has eliminated the funding requested 
for a transportable missile defense radar. The committee found 
the justification for this request inadequate.

               Subtitle A--Defense Agency Authorizations

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the defense agencies for 
fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation 
projects.
Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2403)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the military construction and family housing 
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction 
for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. This provision would also 
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the defense 
agencies. The State list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2007 project 
        (sec. 2404)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (division B of Public Law 109-364) to increase 
the construction authorization for a project at Fort Detrick, 
Maryland by $133.0 million. This increase was requested by the 
Department of Defense.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2006 project (sec. 
        2405)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization for a fiscal year 2006 military construction 
project for the Defense Logistics Agency until October 1, 2009, 
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. 
This extension was requested by the Department of Defense.

          Subtitle B--Chemical Demilitarization Authorizations

Authorized chemical demilitarization program construction and land 
        acquisition projects (sec. 2411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the chemical 
demilitarization program for fiscal year 2009. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.

Authorization of appropriations, chemical demilitarization 
        construction, defense-wide (sec. 2412)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the chemical demilitarization projects 
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2009 in this Act. 
This provision would also provide an overall limit on the 
amount authorized for chemical demilitarization military 
construction projects. The State list contained in this report 
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1997 project 
        (sec. 2413)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201) to increase 
the construction authorization for the chemical 
demilitarization program at the Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado, by 
$223.0 million. This increase was requested by the Department 
of Defense.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project 
        (sec. 2414)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-65) to increase 
the construction authorization for the chemical 
demilitarization program at the Bluegrass Army Depot, Kentucky, 
by $201.7 million. This increase was requested by the 
Department of Defense.
   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriation of $240.9 million for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 
2009. The committee recommends an authorization of 
appropriation of $240.9 million for this program. The committee 
notes that a significant portion of the NATO Security 
Investment Program is currently devoted to support of the NATO 
mission in Afghanistan, and expects that a significant portion 
of the funding for fiscal year 2009 would be used to continue 
those efforts.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program 
in an amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically 
authorized in section 2502 of this title and the amount of 
recoupment due to the United States for construction previously 
financed by the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations of $240.9 million for the United States' 
contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2009.
            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $931.7 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2009 for National Guard and reserve facilities. The 
committee recommends a total of $1.2 billion for military 
construction for the reserve components. The detailed funding 
recommendations are contained in the State list table included 
in this report.
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for 
fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal 
year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on a location-by-
location basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land 
        acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are 
listed on a location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for 
fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for 
fiscal year 2009. The authorized amounts are listed on a 
location-by-location basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the reserve component military construction 
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2009 in 
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 
the amount authorized for military construction projects for 
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The 
State list contained in this report is the binding list of the 
specific projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2006 projects (sec. 
        2607)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for certain Guard and reserve fiscal year 2006 
military construction projects until October 1, 2009, or the 
date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. These 
extensions were requested by the Department of Defense.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2005 project (sec. 
        2608)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorizations for an Army National Guard fiscal year 2005 
military construction project in California until October 1, 
2009, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2010, whichever is later. 
This extension was requested by the Department of Defense.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2008 project 
        (sec. 2609)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public Law 110-181) to increase 
the authorization for a project for the Army National Guard at 
North Kingstown, Rhode Island, by $5.0 million. This increase 
is necessary because of unforeseen increases in the cost of 
this project subsequent to the initial project authorization. 
The authorization of additional appropriations for this fiscal 
year 2008 project is included in the amount in section 2606(1) 
of this Act, and this additional funding is reflected in the 
table of fiscal year 2009 military construction authorizations 
in division B of the report accompanying this Act.

                              Budget Items

Planning and design, Army National Guard

    The committee directs that the amount of $2.0 million, 
added to the authorization of appropriations for planning and 
design for the Army National Guard, be used to complete the 
design of a field maintenance shop in Las Vegas, Nevada; that 
$204,000 added to this account be used to complete the design 
of an infantry platoon battle course at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas; 
and that $682,000 added to this account be used to complete the 
design of a readiness center at The Dalles, Oregon.

Planning and design, Air National Guard

    The committee directs that the amount of $1.1 million, 
added to the authorization of appropriations for planning and 
design for the Air National Guard, be used to complete the 
design of a combat communications training complex at 
Springfield-Beckley Air National Guard Base, Ohio, and that 
$850,000 added to this account be used to complete the design 
of an apron and taxiway for the C-5 aircraft at Eastern West 
Virginia Regional Airport/Shepherd Field in Martinsburg, West 
Virginia.

Planning and design, Air Force Reserve

    The committee directs that the amount of $900,000 added to 
the authorization of appropriations for planning and design for 
the Air Force Reserve be used to complete the design of phase 2 
of the joint services lodging facility at the Youngstown Air 
Reserve Station, Ohio.
          TITLE XXVII--BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables
    The budget request included $393.4 million for the ongoing 
cost of environmental remediation and other activities 
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 
and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. The 
committee has authorized the amount requested for these 
activities in section 2701 of this Act.
    In addition, the budget requested an authorization of 
appropriations of $9.1 billion for implementation of the 2005 
BRAC round. Section 2703 of this Act would authorize the full 
$9.1 billion requested for BRAC activities in fiscal year 2009. 
Included in the $9.1 billion requested for BRAC is an 
authorization of appropriations for $7.2 billion in military 
construction projects that would be initiated in fiscal year 
2009. The total of new full project authorizations, and 
increases in the total authorized cost of three previously 
authorized medical center projects, is $7.0 billion. Section 
2702 of this Act provides the authorization for these projects.
    The following table provides the specific amount authorized 
for each BRAC military construction project as well as the 
amount authorized for appropriations for all BRAC activities, 
including military construction, environmental costs, 
relocation and other operation and maintenance costs, permanent 
change of station costs for military personnel, and other BRAC 
costs. This table is incorporated by reference into this Act as 
provided in section 1002 of this Act.


Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment 
        activities funded through Department of Defense base closure 
        account 1990 (sec. 2701)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for ongoing activities that 
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 
1993, and 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds.

Authorized base closure and realignment activities funded through 
        Department of Defense base closure account 2005 (sec. 2702)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for fiscal year 2009 that are 
required to implement the decisions of the 2005 Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. The table included in 
this title of the report lists the specific amounts authorized 
at each location.

Authorization of appropriations for base closure and realignment 
        activities funded through Department of Defense base closure 
        account 2005 (sec. 2703)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2009 that are required to implement the decisions of the 
2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. This provision 
would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized 
for BRAC military construction projects. The State list 
contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 
projects authorized at each location.

Modification of annual base closure and realignment reporting 
        requirements (sec. 2704)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
reporting requirements for ongoing base closure actions to 
implement the decisions of the 2005 Base Realignment and 
Closure (BRAC) round by terminating the reporting requirements 
for actions regarding realigned bases with the report submitted 
with the budget request for fiscal year 2014, and for closing 
bases with the report submitted with the budget request for 
fiscal year 2016. The base closure round implementation period 
ends in September 2011. The committee believes the sunset dates 
proposed in this provision will provide adequate time to 
document the closure and realignment actions of the 2005 BRAC 
round.

Technical corrections regarding authorized cost and scope of work 
        variations for military construction and military family 
        housing projects related to base closures and realignments 
        (sec. 2705)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make two 
technical corrections to section 2705 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B 
of Public Law 110-181). These technical corrections reflect the 
original intent of the conferees.
         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes


Increase in threshold for unspecified minor military construction 
        projects (sec. 2801)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2805(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, by raising 
the cost ceiling of a construction project authorized by this 
section from $2.0 million to $3.0 million. This provision would 
also eliminate the separate threshold for projects intended 
solely to correct deficiencies that are life-threatening, 
health-threatening, or safety-threatening. The committee 
believes this unified threshold for unspecified minor 
construction projects will provide both greater flexibility and 
greater efficiency for the Department of Defense.

Authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction 
        projects outside the United States (sec. 2802)

    The committee recommends a provision that would further 
amend section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), as amended, to 
extend for 1 additional year, through the end of fiscal year 
2009, the temporary authority provided to the Secretary of 
Defense to use funds appropriated for operation and maintenance 
to carry out construction projects intended to satisfy certain 
operational requirements in support of a declaration of war, 
national emergency, or other contingency.
    The provision would also modify current law to allow the 
Department of Defense to use this authority to construct 
temporary facilities in support of contingency operations at 
locations in Afghanistan where the United States expects to 
have an enduring presence. The provision would also extend from 
30 to 45 days the time for the Department of Defense to 
transmit the quarterly reports on the use of this authority.

Improved oversight and accountability for military housing 
        privatization initiative projects (sec. 2803)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
enhanced oversight of, and reporting on, housing privatization 
projects. The provision would require greater interaction among 
the government and private entities involved in these projects, 
establish minimum bonding levels, specify procedures to be used 
in the case of significant schedule or performance 
deficiencies, ensure that the Department of Defense maintains a 
database of entities that achieve unsatisfactory performance 
ratings on such projects, and require the Department to 
identify and establish regulations to implement best practices 
for monitoring the progress and performance of housing 
privatization projects.
    The committee has long supported, and continues to support, 
the military housing privatization program. The committee is 
disappointed that privatization projects at Air Force 
installations in Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, and Massachusetts 
failed to meet schedule and other performance standards. 
However, the committee notes that the problems with these 
projects, all of which involved a single developer, do not and 
should not overshadow the enormous successes achieved by the 
military housing privatization initiative across the United 
States and across all the military departments over the past 
decade.
    Intrinsic to the very idea of privatization is a more 
``hands off'' approach by Congress and, to a lesser degree, by 
the Department of Defense, than is normally the case with 
acquisition or construction programs. The committee seeks to 
find an appropriate balance that will enhance oversight of this 
program and reduce the chance of the damaging failure of these 
projects being repeated, while still preserving the essential 
structure and benefits of the existing privatization program.

Leasing of military family housing to Secretary of Defense (sec. 2804)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to live in, and lease, a military 
family housing unit in the National Capital Region, and would 
prescribe the rental rate for such quarters.
    The Department of Defense requested this provision in the 
belief that housing the Secretary of Defense in established 
quarters on a secure military installation is far more cost-
effective than installing, maintaining, and protecting 
sensitive Department of Defense equipment, along with secure 
information facilities and security and detection systems, in 
private residences. The Department also believes that housing 
the Secretary on a military installation would substantially 
reduce the logistics burden, disruptions to the public, and 
costs associated with protecting the Secretary, and would 
provide the Secretary with quarters that are properly equipped 
for executive security and communications. The committee agrees 
with the Department's rationale.

Cost-benefit analysis of dissolution of Patrick Family Housing LLC 
        (sec. 2805)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional 
defense committees a cost-benefit analysis regarding the 
dissolution of the Patrick Family Housing LLC created in 
connection with the privatization of military family housing at 
Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, and would prohibit the 
Secretary from dissolving that entity until this analysis has 
been submitted.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration


Participation in conservation banking programs (sec. 2811)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Department of Defense to participate in conservation 
mitigation bank programs. This authority would generally 
operate under the same terms and conditions as the existing 
wetlands mitigation bank authority contained in section 2694b 
of title 10, United States Code.
    The committee believes this additional authority has the 
potential to enhance training and testing both for forces as 
they are currently stationed as well as for installations, such 
as those on Guam, where additional forces may be stationed, 
which will in turn increase the need for local training to 
accommodate the increased population at such installations.

Clarification of congressional reporting requirements for certain real 
        property transactions (sec. 2812)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2662 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
requirement for the Secretaries of the military departments to 
notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House 
of Representatives and to wait a specified period before 
entering into real property transactions listed in section 2662 
of title 10, United States Code.
    The notice and wait requirement applies to six listed real 
property transactions, and provides for limited exceptions. 
Subsection (c) states that section 2662 does not apply to 
``river and harbor projects or flood control projects, or to 
leases of Government-owned real property for agricultural or 
grazing purposes or to any real property acquisition 
specifically authorized in a Military Construction 
Authorization Act.''
    This section would clarify and expand the current exception 
for ``river and harbor projects or flood control projects'' to 
cover ``Army civil works water resource development projects.'' 
This is consistent with an informal understanding that section 
2662 applies only to military real property transactions. The 
Army civil works mission, however, now includes more than just 
river and harbor or flood control projects. This amendment 
would recognize the intended scope of section 2662 and 
specifically exclude all Army civil works water resource 
development projects from the notice and wait requirements.

Modification of land management restrictions applicable to Utah 
        national defense lands (sec. 2813)

    The committee recommends a provision that would sunset a 
reporting requirement and associated restriction contained in 
section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). This provision of current 
law restricts the actions of the Department of the Interior 
until the Secretary of Defense submitted a report. The 
Department of Defense has failed, in over 7 years, to submit 
this report, and has not given the committee any indication 
that the report will ever be submitted. The committee does not 
believe it is sound public policy for one government agency to 
restrict the actions of another agency indefinitely simply 
through inaction. The committee believes these restrictions 
should be terminated not later than the end of fiscal year 
2013, which is the date contained in the legislation on this 
matter adopted by the Senate in 2007.

                      Subtitle C--Land Conveyances


Transfer of proceeds from property conveyance, Marine Corps Logistics 
        Base, Albany, Georgia (sec. 2821)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer the proceeds from the sale of 
the Boyett Village Housing Complex at the Marine Corps 
Logistics Base Albany, Georgia, into the Family Housing 
Improvement Fund (FHIF) for carrying out military family 
housing privatization activities. This housing is surplus to 
long-term Marine Corps family housing requirements.
    Absent special authority, the proceeds from the disposal of 
family housing property must be transferred to the Defense 
Military Family Housing Management Account under section 2831 
of title 10, United States Code. Those proceeds would then be 
used to carry out operations and maintenance activities 
associated with government-owned military family housing. 
Because of the extensive privatization of military family 
housing property already achieved, these funds are not needed 
in the operations and maintenance account.
    The committee urges the Department of Defense to give first 
priority for the use of these proceeds to remedying the 
problems at the Air Force housing privatization projects in 
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Massachusetts.

                      Subtitle D--Energy Security


Expansion of authority of the military departments to develop energy on 
        military lands (sec. 2831)

    The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 
authority of the military departments to develop energy 
resources on military lands. Section 2917 of title 10, United 
States Code currently authorizes such development in the case 
of geothermal energy resources. The provision recommended by 
the committee would expand this authority to include other 
renewable energy resources, such as solar energy.
    The committee notes that this provision would have the 
effect of expanding the authority of the Department of Defense 
to enter into long-term contracts for geothermal energy under 
section 2922a of title 10, United States Code, to other 
renewable energy resources developed on military lands.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Report on application of force protection and anti-terrorism standards 
        to gates and entry points on military installations (sec. 2841)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report, not later than February 1, 2009, on the 
implementation of Department of Defense anti-terrorism/force 
protection (AT/FP) standards for main gates or entry points of 
military installations.
    The committee recognizes the importance of anti-terrorism 
and force protection (AT/FP) measures for Department of Defense 
installations and facilities. The continued need for attention 
to this issue is emphasized by the recent bombing of an Army 
recruiting station located in New York City, New York. The 
committee is concerned that adequate funding has not been 
requested to construct permanent facilities and equipment to 
ensure compliance with AT/FP standards. Timely execution of 
these requirements is necessary to protect the safety and 
welfare of service members and their families. The committee 
expects the Department of Defense to include, in conjunction 
with this report, funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget and 
future-years defense program to ensure that main gates and 
entry points at military installations comply with AT/FP 
standards.

                       Items of Special Interest


Defense Access Roads criteria

    The Department of Defense (DOD) has the responsibility to 
determine whether proposed improvements to roads serving 
military installations may be eligible for financing through 
the Defense Access Roads (DAR) program. Section 210 of title 
23, United States Code, authorizes DOD to pay a fair share of 
the cost of public road improvements necessary to mitigate an 
unusual impact of a defense activity if the Secretary of 
Defense determines the requirement to be important to national 
defense. An unusual impact includes the establishment of a new 
military installation, a significant increase in assigned 
personnel at an existing military installation, the relocation 
of an access gate, compensation for a closure of a public road 
caused by military activities, transport of heavy equipment 
over a public road, or a temporary surge of military activity 
creating intolerable congestion.
    The committee is concerned that the current DAR eligibility 
criteria contained in the Federal-aid Policy Guide of the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) do not consider the full 
range of transportation impacts or requirements. The committee 
is aware that the criteria currently do not account for safety 
and security concerns for local roads, even though certain DAR 
projects have been carried out in the past 5 years in order to 
correct significant deficiencies threatening the safety of 
military personnel.
    In addition, the decisions of the 2005 Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment process, relocations of forces from overseas, 
and growth in the size of the Army and Marine Corps have led to 
a substantial increase in the number of personnel on certain 
military installations over a period of just a few years. Yet 
the staggered nature of these basing decisions make it 
difficult to show that any one decision meets the strict 
criterion of at least doubling local traffic, or easily 
determine the appropriate scope of cumulative impacts. As a 
result, valid transportation requirements may not be considered 
eligible due to a strict interpretation of the Adoubling@ 
criterion, despite a significant expansion of the 
installation's population.
    The committee notes that the Transportation Research Board, 
which serves as an independent adviser to the President, 
Congress, and federal agencies on scientific and technical 
questions, has published a Highway Capacity Manual, which 
contains state-of-the-art techniques for estimating road 
capacity and determining levels of service for transportation 
facilities and modes. These techniques have been adopted by the 
Federal Highway Administration as a basis for assessment of 
road requirements based on current congestion and saturation 
levels for traffic flows on public roads.
    The DAR criteria were developed to assess the relative 
impact of military activities on public roads. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, working with the 
Secretary of Transportation, to review the current DAR 
eligibility requirements and to submit a report to Congress, 
not later than September 30, 2008, that includes the following:
          (1) a description of the current DAR criteria, 
        including the statutory, regulatory, or policy basis 
        for each of them;
          (2) the procedures in place to assist installation 
        commanders in understanding the DAR criteria and 
        submitting requests for DAR projects;
          (3) an assessment of whether each DAR project carried 
        out in the past 10 years has specifically met the 
        current criteria;
          (4) an analysis of whether a separate military 
        construction account for DAR projects is in the best 
        interest of the Department;
          (5) a review of the best practices and techniques 
        used by the FHWA to assess road capacity requirements, 
        and whether these techniques and measurement tools 
        would be appropriate for assessing eligibility for DAR 
        projects; and
          (6) any recommendations for changes in the criteria.

Military construction reprogrammings

    Military construction projects are authorized on an 
installation-by-installation basis in statute in annual 
military construction authorization acts. The statement of 
managers in the conference reports that accompany those acts 
provides a binding ``State list'' that describes each specific 
project at each installation. Annual military construction 
appropriations conference reports provide similar binding lists 
of the construction projects for which appropriations are being 
made available. These projects are not specified individually 
in the statutory language of annual appropriations acts.
    Section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, allows for 
variation in the cost or scope of such projects above certain 
limits. With respect to the authorization for such projects, 
changes to the authorized amounts are made on a notice-and-wait 
basis following the notices provided pursuant to section 2853. 
With respect to the appropriations for such projects, the 
transfers are made not on a notice-and-wait basis, but on a 
prior approval basis, as directed in the statement of managers 
of annual military construction appropriations acts.
    Since military construction projects require both an 
authorization and an appropriation, the committee believes the 
procedures for changing the congressionally approved funding 
for such projects should be consistent among the committees, 
and consistent with established practices for the reprogramming 
of other defense funds.
    Beginning with fiscal year 2009 projects, the committee 
directs the Department of Defense to submit proposed transfers 
of funds between military construction projects to the 
Committee on Armed Services of the United States Senate on the 
same prior approval basis as these reprogrammings are submitted 
to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives.
      TITLE XXIX--WAR-RELATED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary
    In March 2008, the Department of Defense made an informal 
request to the congressional defense committees to add new 
projects for fiscal year 2008, both inside the United States as 
well as in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, and 
to cancel some projects which were authorized in title XXIX of 
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (division B of Public Law 110-181).
    The provisions in subtitle A of this Act relating to fiscal 
year 2008 authorize $355.2 million in additional construction 
projects requested by the Department of Defense, and cancel the 
authorizations for $105.7 million of previously authorized 
projects in Iraq.
    The President's budget request for fiscal year 2009 
included $70.0 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The administration has not yet provided any detailed allocation 
of how those funds will be used. However, the committee 
understands that there are fiscal year 2009 military 
construction requirements related to these operations, 
specifically, for additional warrior transition unit facilities 
for wounded warriors. The committee recommends an additional 
$500.0 million in fiscal year 2009 war-related construction 
funding, within the overall total of $70.0 billion for war-
related activities in this Act, for such purposes.
    The following table describes the specific project 
adjustments for fiscal year 2008. No specific projects have 
been identified at this time for fiscal year 2009. These tables 
are incorporated by reference into this Act as provided in 
section 1002 of this Act.


                 Subtitle A--Fiscal Year 2008 Projects


Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$162.1 million in additional war-related military construction 
projects for the Army for fiscal year 2008. These 
authorizations are in addition to the projects and amounts 
authorized in title XXIX of the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public 
Law 110-181).
    The additional funding would construct 15 additional child 
development centers at installations in the United States.
    These projects were requested by the Department of Defense.

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2902)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$94.7 million in additional war-related military construction 
projects for the Navy for fiscal year 2008. These 
authorizations are in addition to the projects and amounts 
authorized in title XXIX of the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public 
Law 110-181).
    The majority of this additional funding is for counter-
improvised explosive device (IED) battle courses at various 
Navy and Marine Corps locations in the United States. The 
balance of the funding, $28.3 million, would construct child 
development centers at Camp Lejeuene, North Carolina and in San 
Diego, California.
    These projects were requested by the Department of Defense.

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2903)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$98.4 million in additional war-related military construction 
projects for the Air Force for fiscal year 2008. These 
authorizations are in addition to the projects and amounts 
authorized in title XXIX of the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (division B of Public 
Law 110-181).
    Of this additional funding, $60.4 million would accelerate 
a close air support project at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar that 
was originally requested in the fiscal year 2009 budget into 
the fiscal year 2008 budget. There is also an additional $36.6 
million to construct child development centers at three Air 
Force installations in the United States.
    These projects were requested by the Department of Defense.

Termination of authority to carry out fiscal year 2008 Army projects 
        (sec. 2904)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
project authorizations for $105.7 million of Army construction 
projects in Iraq that were authorized in title XXIX of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(division B of Public Law 110-181).
    The Department of Defense has accomplished one of these 
projects using another authority, and has advised the committee 
that the remainder of these projects are no longer required.

                 Subtitle B--Fiscal Year 2009 Projects


Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2911)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$450.0 million in war-related military construction projects 
for the Army for fiscal year 2009. The committee understands 
the Army has identified a substantial requirement for 
additional warrior transition unit facilities, primarily 
barracks, for fiscal year 2009. This provision would provide 
additional funding for such facilities. The funding would be 
available 14 days after the Secretary of Defense submits a 
report to Congress with a description and justification of the 
specific projects to be funded.
    The committee is disappointed that the Army has not 
included these projects in the fiscal year 2009 budget request, 
nor did the Chief of Staff of the Army highlight them as one of 
his unfunded Army priorities. The committee believes facilities 
to care for wounded warriors should be a top priority of the 
Army and the Department of Defense and funding for such 
facilities should have been included in the budget request. The 
committee intends to build on the progress made in last year's 
Wounded Warrior Act, and has included these funds in 
anticipation of the Army identifying such requirements as a 
fiscal year 2009 supplemental request.

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2912)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$50.0 million in war-related military construction projects for 
the Navy for fiscal year 2009. This provision would provide 
additional funding for warrior transition unit facilities, 
primarily barracks. The funding would be available 14 days 
after the Secretary of Defense submits a report to Congress 
with a description and justification of the specific projects 
to be funded.
    The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to ensure 
that the Department of the Navy is providing all the facilities 
needed for the care and recovery of wounded marines or sailors. 
The committee believes facilities to care for wounded warriors 
should be a top priority of the Department of Defense, and 
expects the Secretary of the Navy to promptly identify any 
facility requirements pursuant to this authorization.

Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes relating to 
        Iraq (sec. 2913)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
prohibition enacted in section 1222 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to 
fiscal year 2009. This provision would prohibit the use of 
funds appropriated pursuant to authorizations in this Act to 
establish any installation or base intended to provide for the 
permanent stationing of United States forces in Iraq, or to 
exercise control over the oil resources of Iraq.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Overview
    Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
2009, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear 
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration 
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses 
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes 
appropriations in four categories: (1) National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental 
cleanup; (3) other defense activities; and (4) defense nuclear 
waste disposal. The budget request for atomic energy defense 
activities at the Department totaled $16.0 billion, a 5.6 
percent increase above the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level.
    Of the total amount suggested:
    (1) $9.1 billion is for NNSA, of which
          (a) $6.6 is for weapons activities;
          (b) $1.2 is for defense nuclear nonproliferation 
        activities;
          (c) $828.1 million is for naval reactors; and
          (d) $404.1 million is for the Office of the 
        Administrator;
    (2) $5.3 billion is for defense environmental cleanup;
    (3) $1.3 billion is for other defense activities; and
    (4) $247.4 million is for defense nuclear waste disposal.
    The budget request also included $7.6 million within energy 
supply.
    The committee recommends $16.0 billion for atomic energy 
defense activities, the amount of the budget request.
    Of the amounts authorized, the committee recommends:
    (1) $9.6 billion for NNSA, of which
          (a) $6.6 billion is for weapons activities, a 
        decrease of $7.4 million below the budget request;
          (b) $1.8 billion is for defense nuclear 
        nonproliferation activities, an increase of $552.0 
        million above the budget request;
          (c) $828.1 million is for naval reactors, the amount 
        of the budget request; and
          (c) $404.1 million is for the Office of the 
        Administrator, the amount of the budget request;
    (2) $5.3 billion for defense environmental cleanup 
activities, the amount of the budget request;
    (3) $826.5 million for other defense activities, a decrease 
of $487.0 million below the budget request; and
    (4) $197.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a 
decrease of $50.0 million below the budget request.
    The committee recommends no funds for energy supply, a 
reduction of $7.6 million.
    The following table summarizes the budget request and the 
authorizations: 


         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations


National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
total of $9.6 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal 
year 2009 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to 
carry out programs necessary to national security, an increase 
of $544.6 million above the budget request.

Weapons activities

    The committee recommends $6.6 billion for weapons 
activities, a decrease of $7.4 million below the budget 
request. The committee authorizes the following activities: 
$1.6 billion for directed stockpile work; $1.6 billion for 
campaigns; $1.7 billion for readiness in the technical base and 
facilities; $221.1 million for the secure transportation asset; 
$221.9 million for nuclear weapons incident response; $40.6 
million for environmental projects and operations; $77.4 
million for transformation disposition; $899.8 million for 
safeguards and security; and $233.8 million for facilities and 
infrastructure recapitalization.

Directed stockpile work

    The committee recommends $1.6 billion for directed 
stockpile work, a decrease of $26.0 million below the amount of 
the budget request. The directed stockpile account supports 
work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, including 
day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development, 
engineering, and certification activities to support planned 
life extension programs and the reliable replacement warhead. 
This account also includes fabrication and assembly of weapons 
components, feasibility studies, weapons dismantlement and 
disposal, training, and support equipment.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $18.0 million in the 
W76 life extension program as a result of schedule delays. In 
addition, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million 
in weapons dismantlement and disposition for additional studies 
for the device assembly facility (DAF) and a decrease of $20.0 
million in pit manufacturing. The committee believes that the 
DAF is under-utilized and that the efforts begun last year to 
expand the current missions at the DAF should be continued. The 
committee notes that the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) has restructured funding for pit 
manufacturing into two new project lines for fiscal year 2009. 
There appears to be substantial overlap in the activities in 
the two new project lines.

Campaigns

    The committee recommends $1.6 billion for campaigns, a 
decrease of $27.6 million below the amount of the budget 
request. The campaigns focus on science and engineering efforts 
involving the three nuclear weapons laboratories, the Nevada 
Test Site, and the weapons production plants. Each campaign is 
focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the 
nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing. 
These efforts from the scientific underpinning of the 
Department of Energy's annual certification that the stockpile 
remains safe, secure, and reliable with nuclear weapons 
testing. The reduction in the tritium readiness campaign takes 
into account a large carryover balance resulting in contracting 
delays.

Readiness in the technical base

    The committee recommends $1.7 million for readiness in the 
technical base, a decrease of $50.0 million below the budget 
request. This account funds facilities and infrastructure in 
the nuclear weapons complex and includes construction funding 
for new facilities.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million in the 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement project (CMRR), 
Project 04-D-125, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory as a 
result of uncertainty in the design of the CMRR. As the Defense 
Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) noted, replacing the 
existing facility is essential but the CMRR has significant 
unresolved issues for which there is no clear resolution. The 
CMRR is one of two projects with which the DNFSB have the most 
significant unresolved safety issues. These issues are 
associated with the project's safety-related systems. Until 
such time as the safety basis documents are completed, the 
outstanding issues cannot be resolved. CMRR will be a category 
I facility supporting pit operations in building PF-4 and has a 
preliminary cost estimate of $2.6 billion. The committee 
continues to support reconstitution of the pit manufacturing 
capability in PF-4 but urges that all safety issues with CMRR 
be resolved as soon as possible. If there is any change in the 
planned mission at CMRR, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Energy to notify the congressional defense committees.
    The committee has included an offset of $8.0 million for 
prior year balances in weapons activities and directs that this 
offset be applied to the Ion Beam Laboratory Refurbishment at 
Sandia National Laboratory, Project 08-D-806. These funds are 
available as result of the completion of the Microelectronics 
Facility at Sandia National Laboratory.

Secure transportation asset

    The committee recommends $221.1 million for the secure 
transportation asset (STA), the amount of the budget request. 
The secure transportation asset is responsible for the 
transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, and 
components, and other materials requiring safe and secure 
transport. The committee directs the STA to include in its 
budget submittal for fiscal year 2010 a break out of the lease 
expenses for each leased facility and the expenses for each 
minor construction project. In addition, the committee reminds 
STA of its obligation to fully notify Congress of all third-
party financing arrangements in advance of executing any 
leases.

Nuclear weapons incident response

    The committee recommends $221.9 million for nuclear weapons 
incident response, the amount of the budget request.

Safeguards and security

    The committee recommends $899.8 million for safeguards and 
security, an increase of $40.0 million above the budget 
request. The committee recommends additional funds to continue 
to address training and equipment issues and to meet the 2005 
design basis threat.

Facilities and Infrastructure

    The committee recommends $223.8 million for the facilities 
and infrastructure program (FIRP), an increase of $64.2 million 
above the amount of the budget request, to meet urgent 
maintenance requirements across the NNSA complex. FIRP was 
established to address the backlog of deferred maintenance at 
NNSA facilities. While the FIRP has been successful, the 
committee is concerned that as the FIRP comes to a close, 
routine maintenance of facilities, and utilities and 
infrastructure upgrades, such as electrical system and road 
improvement, will once again be deferred to address 
programmatic demands. As a result, the committee recommends 
that the NNSA establish a separate facilities management 
function reporting to the Administrator or the Principal 
Administrator. This function should be devoted exclusively to 
managing and maintaining facilities so that both new and 
existing facilities, including those that have been built 
recently, and that are planned, do not fall into disrepair.

Environmental projects and operations and transformation disposition

    The committee recommends $40.6 million for environmental 
projects and $77.4 million for transformation, the amount of 
the budget request. Transformation is a new account in fiscal 
year 2009 dedicated to disposition of excess facilities through 
demolition, sale, or transfer. Some facilities will be 
stabilized and transferred to the Office of Environmental 
Management. The committee directs the NNSA to work closely with 
the Office of Environmental Management (EM) to ensure that the 
work funded in both budget lines is fully coordinated with EM. 
The committee notes that the increase in environmental projects 
and the new transformation disposition activity represents a 
substantial increase in funding for these activities in NNSA.

Stockpile surveillance testing

    In 2001 the Department of Energy (DOE) Inspector General 
(IG) reported that the DOE was behind schedule in conducting 
stockpile surveillance tests. These surveillance tests are 
supposed to be conducted on a routine basis to support the 
annual requirement to certify that the nuclear weapons 
stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable. In response to 
the 2001 report, the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) committed to take steps to return the stockpile 
surveillance tests to the planned schedule. In October 2006, 
the DOE IG office conducted a follow-up review of the 
commitments made in 2001 and whether NNSA had resolved the 
surveillance testing backlog. Again, the IG found that although 
NNSA had made progress, significant backlogs existed in the 
surveillance tests. In response, NNSA committed to fully 
resolve the backlog in surveillance testing by the end of 2007. 
The committee directs the DOE IG to review the status of 
stockpile surveillance tests to determine whether the backlog 
in surveillance continues, and if it still exists, the extent 
of the backlog.

Construction projects

    The committee is increasingly concerned that the Department 
of Energy (DOE) is moving away from funding construction 
projects with funds authorized and appropriated for line item 
construction projects and seeking non-traditional approaches to 
construction funding. These non-traditional projects may, in 
the long-term, be more expensive than traditional line item 
construction projects, and may introduce new security risks and 
other management complications at DOE sites. In addition, the 
committee is concerned that efforts to secure non-traditional 
funding may be because the projects in question do not meet 
programmatic requirements or fill programmatic needs. If the 
Secretary of Energy determines that there is a need for a new 
facility or building to meet programmatic requirements and 
activities, the committee urges the Secretary to include 
requests for traditional line item construction projects to 
meet such programmatic requirements.
    The committee is aware of anecdotal complaints about the 
construction planning and decision process, and urges the DOE 
to address issues that arise from management of the process or 
to bring to the committee's attention any issues that are 
founded in statutory requirements.
    The committee recognizes that the many multiple 
disciplinary activities at the DOE laboratories and facilities 
support both direct DOE activities as well as activities that 
assist broader United States Government activities, and 
encourage DOE to take these responsibilities into consideration 
in determining requirements for new buildings and facilities.
    As the DOE moves forward to recapitalize manufacturing and 
continues to improve science, engineering, research, and other 
capabilities, while downsizing the overall footprint of the 
complex, it must ensure sound, transparent financial planning 
and execution.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs

    The committee recommends $1.8 billion for the Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program, an increase of $552.0 million 
above the budget request for the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation program. The National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) has management and oversight 
responsibility for the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the 
Department of Energy (DOE).
    The committee recommends funding for these programs as 
follows: $286.9 million for nonproliferation and verification 
research and development, an increase of $25.0 million; $120.5 
million for nonproliferation and international security, a 
decrease of $20.0 million; $479.7 million for international 
nuclear materials production and cooperation, an increase of 
$50.0 million; $141.3 million for elimination of weapons-grade 
plutonium production, the amount of the budget request; $538.8 
million for fissile materials disposition which includes a 
transfer of $487.0 million from another program office in the 
DOE and an increase of $10.0 million; and $219.6 million for 
the global threat reduction initiative, the amount of the 
budget request.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for 
nonproliferation and verification research and development, for 
increased forensics capabilities, international safeguards 
technologies, nuclear detonation systems, seismic monitoring, 
and proliferation detection technologies. The committee 
continues to be concerned about the continued ability of the 
United States to effectively monitor and detect clandestine 
nuclear weapons development activity and to attribute nuclear 
weapons, improvised nuclear devices, and radiological dispersal 
devices. Recent collaborative interagency efforts are 
encouraging but the committee urges the many federal agencies 
to exercise this developing interagency process for detection 
and attribution, including the role that the DOE and its 
laboratories play in the nuclear forensics portion of this 
process.
    The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act, it has 
included a provision that would establish a scholarship and 
fellowship program for nuclear nonproliferation activities. A 
recently released study by the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science and the American Physical Society, which 
discusses nuclear forensics, highlights the work that needs to 
be done to develop the global, technical, and operational 
cooperation needed in the event that a terrorist successfully 
detonates a nuclear weapon or device or uses a radiological 
dispersal device.

Nonproliferation and international security

    The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million, 
including a reduction of $5.0 million for Global Initiatives 
for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP), and a reduction of $15.0 
million for support to the Global Nuclear Energy program 
(GNEP). The committee believes that the GIPP has helped to 
ensure that former nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons 
scientists in the former Soviet Union (FSU) were gainfully 
employed during a period of transition. Today, Russia and some 
of the other FSU countries are enjoying economic growth and, as 
the Government Accountability Office has noted, may no longer 
need the assistance provided under the GIPP program. On the 
other hand, some of the FSU countries have not been as 
fortunate. For these and for additional countries, such as Iraq 
and possibly North Korea, new partnership opportunities might 
be useful. Elsewhere in this Act the committee recommends a 
provision calling for a review of the GIPP program. This review 
will afford NNSA the opportunity to re-baseline the GIPP 
program, reviewing the need for and goals of the program.
    The committee also notes that some of the work in 
nonproliferation and international security is in direct 
support of the GNEP. The committee takes no view on the GNEP as 
it is not a program funded as part of the Atomic Energy Defense 
activities, but believes that the nonproliferation programs 
should not directly support specific future energy 
technologies. As a result the committee recommends a decrease 
of $15.0 million.

International nuclear materials and cooperation

    The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in 
international nuclear materials and cooperation to verifiably 
disable and dismantle the North Korean nuclear program. 
Elsewhere in this Act the committee recommends a provision that 
would enable the NNSA to support the Department of State in 
North Korean denuclearization activities.

Fissile materials disposition

    The committee recommends a transfer of $487.0 million from 
nuclear energy, other defense activities to the NNSA for the 
mixed oxide fuel (MOX) facility. The NNSA is mandated to carry 
out nonproliferation activities. The Unites States and Russia 
have made considerable progress in formulating a new plan for 
each country to disposition 34 metric tons of excess weapons 
grade plutonium. As a result the committee continues to support 
the fissile materials disposition program as an important part 
of the overall nuclear nonproliferation program. The committee 
recognizes that the NNSA will have additional amounts of excess 
plutonium to disposition and expects the NNSA to continue to 
use this approximately $12.0 billion complex of facilities to 
disposition plutonium well into the future.
    The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for 
the Russian fissile materials disposition program to continue 
the joint gas reactor technology demonstration program. The gas 
reactor is a more efficient burner of excess plutonium than 
conventional reactors. The committee notes that the Russian 
Government and the United States jointly fund this effort and 
that Russian Government support for the program will exceed the 
U.S. contribution.

Naval reactors

    The committee recommends $793.6 million for naval reactors, 
the amount of the budget request. The committee directs the 
Office of Naval Reactors to review carefully options for using 
low enriched uranium fuel in new or modified reactor plants for 
surface ships and submarines.

Office of the Administrator

    The committee recommends $404.1 million for program 
direction for the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA), the amount of the budget request. This account provides 
program direction funding for all elements of the NNSA, except 
for the naval reactors program and the secure transportation 
asset.

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.3 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal year 
2009 for defense environmental cleanup, the amount of the 
budget request. The provision would authorize $501.2 million in 
additional environmental projects offset by $501.2 million in 
prior year balances. The committee recommends the additional 
authorization authority in the event funds become available to 
address a variety of projects at DOE defense sites to address 
budget shortfalls. Without additional funds, much of the 
ongoing cleanup would be disrupted, causing the DOE to miss 
many enforceable milestones, require significant layoffs, and 
increase the overall cost of the cleanup. The specific projects 
are listed in the DOE budget tables for the defense cleanup 
program in this committee report.

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$826.5 million for other defense activities, a decrease of 
$487.0 million from the amount of the budget request. The 
committee recommends: $446.9 million for health, safety, and 
security, the amount of the budget request; $186.0 million for 
legacy management, the amount of the request; $6.6 million for 
the office of hearings and appeals; and $78.8 million for 
nuclear energy, a decrease of $487.0 million. The committee 
recommends that the $487.0 million included in the budget 
request for other defense activities for the mixed oxide fuel 
fabrication be transferred to the National Nuclear Security 
Administration.

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$197.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease 
of $50.0 million below the budget request due to uncertainties 
in the program. The committee remains supportive of the effort 
to establish a geologic repository as delays in the repository 
delay the ability of the Defense Environmental Management 
program to complete its work with respect to high level waste 
and spent nuclear fuel, and increase the overall cost of 
cleanup.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations


Modifications of functions of Administrator for Nuclear Security to 
        include elimination of surplus fissile materials usable for 
        nuclear weapons (sec. 3111)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2402(b)(1) of title 50, United States Code, by adding a 
new paragraph assigning responsibility for elimination of 
surplus fissile materials usable for nuclear weapons to the 
Administrator for Nuclear Security. This provision would 
restate that the responsibility for this activity is assigned 
to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation.

Report on compliance with Design Basis Threat issued by the Department 
        of Energy in 2005 (sec. 3112)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Energy to submit a report on the progress made by 
the Department of Energy (DOE) to achieve compliance with the 
requirements of the 2005 design basis threat (DBT) for each DOE 
site with Category I nuclear materials. The DBT establishes the 
physical security requirements for each DOE site. This report 
would be a follow-on report to the 2006 DBT report, which laid 
out a plan for each site to either be compliant by 2008 or 
obtain a waiver. The provision would also direct the Secretary 
to conduct an assessment of the 2005 DBT and to identify any 
necessary modifications, updates, or revisions to the 2005 DBT. 
The committee is concerned that several sites may not be in 
compliance with the 2005 DBT by the end of 2008.

Modification of submittal of reports on inadvertent releases of 
        restricted data (sec. 3113)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2672 of title 50, United States Code, to make the 
annual report on inadvertent releases of restricted data due 
every other year rather than annually. This report deals with 
inadvertent releases of restricted data that might occur during 
the process of declassifying historical documents. When the 
current process for declassification was established 
approximately 10 years ago, there were a series of inadvertent 
releases. Since that time the process has become much more 
rigorous and an annual report is no longer needed.
    The provision would further amend section 2672 to change 
the frequency of the report that the Secretary of Energy 
submits to Congress to identify the plans of various federal 
agencies to prevent the inadvertent release of restricted data. 
Each agency that has or may have restricted data in its 
historical documents slated for release must prepare a plan to 
ensure that such data is not inadvertently released. The 
Department of Energy (DOE) must review the plans, determine 
that they are sufficient, and determine if the agency is in 
compliance with its plan. This amendment would modify the 
frequency of the DOE review of the agencies' plans from 
periodic, which has been treated by the Secretary as an annual 
requirement, to once every 2 years. The agencies have made 
considerable progress in establishing effective plans.

Nonproliferation scholarship and fellowship program (sec. 3114)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) to establish a nonproliferation scholarship program. The 
committee is concerned that certain technical areas of 
expertise critical to nonproliferation programs, such as radio-
chemistry, are increasingly difficult for the NNSA and the 
Department of Energy laboratories to attract and retain. The 
scholarship program would be available to both undergraduate 
and graduate students in disciplines to be determined by the 
Administrator. A student would be required to work as a Federal 
Government employee or as a laboratory employee for 1 year for 
each year that the student received support under the program.

Review of and reports on Global Initiatives for Proliferation 
        Prevention program (sec. 3115)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
to conduct a review of the Global Initiatives for Proliferation 
Prevention (GIPP) program and submit a report on the review to 
the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 
2009.
    The report would include a description of the goals for the 
GIPP program and the criteria for partnership projects together 
with recommendations regarding the future of projects in Russia 
and the other countries of the former Soviet Union as well as 
plans for projects in countries other than the former Soviet 
Union. In addition, the report would include a plan for 
completing all projects in the countries of the former Soviet 
Union by 2012.
          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$29.0 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
(DNFSB). This is an increase of $3.0 million above the budget 
request. The DNFSB has the responsibility to ensure that the 
health and safety of the public surrounding, and workers at 
Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities are 
adequately protected. The DNFSB is responsible not only for 
operational nuclear safety of existing facilities and 
activities, but also ensures that the design and construction 
of new defense nuclear projects and decommissioning of old 
facilities meets applicable DOE orders.
    The DOE is in the process of designing and constructing 
many new facilities, including major new nuclear facilities, 
and decommissioning the older facilities that are no longer 
needed. The committee believes that additional funds are needed 
to enable the DNFSB to hire additional technical staff to 
ensure that the DNFSB fully reviews and provides the results of 
those reviews to DOE. Timely interaction with DOE is 
particularly important in the design and construction process. 
The work of the DNFSB is growing substantially as DOE is 
undertaking 26 new nuclear construction projects. The budget 
request funds only two thirds of the DNFSB statutory staffing 
levels.
    The committee continues to find the quarterly reports 
useful by highlighting issues as they emerge, and commends the 
DNFSB for submitting reports that are succinct, clearly 
written, and timely.
    The committee is concerned that if the DOE pursues third 
party financing of facilities in which nuclear operations are 
conducted, the DNFSB will either not be able to carry out its 
statutory responsibilities or that it will be more difficult or 
costly to do so. The committee reminds the DOE that if it is 
conducting nuclear operations at a defense nuclear facility, 
the DNFSB has jurisdiction over the facility and the 
operations.
    Recently the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) asked the DNFSB to provide technical assistance for the 
Mixed Oxide Fuel facility, a facility not within the 
jurisdiction of the DNFSB. The committee supports the use of 
the DNFSB in this capacity, but notes that the DNFSB does not 
have funds authorized and appropriated for this purpose. The 
committee directs the DNFSB and the NNSA to enter into an 
agreement that provides for full cost recovery by the DNFSB for 
work for others.


                        LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS


                      Departmental Recommendations

    By letter dated February 5, 2008, the General Counsel of 
the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the 
Senate proposed legislation ``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.'' The transmittal letter and 
proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive 
Communication 5192 to the Committee on Armed Services on 
February 26, 2008.
    Executive Communication 5192 is available for review at the 
committee.

                            Committee Action

    The committee ordered reported a comprehensive original 
bill and a series of original bills for the Department of 
Defense, military construction and Department of Energy 
authorizations by voice vote.
    The committee vote to report the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 passed by roll call 
vote, 24-0, as follows: In favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, 
Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of 
Nebraska, Bayh, Pryor, Webb, McCaskill, McCain, Warner, Inhofe, 
Sessions, Collins, Chambliss, Graham, Dole, Cornyn, Thune, 
Martinez and Wicker. Opposed: None.
    The roll call votes on motions and amendments to the bill 
which were considered during the course of the markup have been 
made public and are available at the committee.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not 
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included 
in material presented during floor debate on the legislation.

                           Regulatory Impact

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the 
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds 
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National 
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2009.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law 
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in 
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the 
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such 
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and 
reduce the expenditure of funds.

                                  
